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

Radar Discussion Megathread

1,283 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
4,630 posts
5,719 battles
6 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

 

Radio-locator+ is actually what radar is. 

Right now, it is more like what @nambr9 posted. 

 

My solution still negates smoke - and we have hydro as well. 

It doesn't negate smoke any more than a spotter plane and smoke firing skill does. And hydro is typically too short ranged to be of anywhere near the same efficiency unless it is 1v1. In exchange, hydro is up for minutes, radar is up for less than a minute even in the most extreme cases.

5 hours ago, Mandalorianer said:

@MrConway

 

It's kinda sad how every gimmic is inGame used as an offensive tool while iRL it was a purely defensive...

Radar, Smoke Screens, RPF (if such a thing even existed back then) or Hydro...

I'm pretty sure radar-assisted ranging and hydroaccoustic detection of submarines for depth charges are not "defensive" uses of these tools. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GOE]
Players
1,647 posts
6,850 battles
8 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

I'm pretty sure radar-assisted ranging and hydroaccoustic detection of submarines for depth charges are not "defensive" uses of these tools. 

 

Because listing one of the many uses of each technology that is "offensive" changes the fact that both originally where developed as "defensive"...

nrn8x.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[VRNG]
Players
116 posts
6,101 battles
59 minutes ago, Mandalorianer said:

Because listing one of the many uses of each technology that is "offensive" changes the fact that both originally where developed as "defensive"...

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

aed.gif

how many defensive gimmic do we have that is actually offensive?
radars and hydros was first yes created for a defensive role to counter a type of crap, but later they realized that it can be used for offensive role, just like everything else in the wrold, like i can defend myself with stick but at the same time i can beat the crap out of you in an offensive way

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles

Radar is first and foremost an area denial tool. It's an area denial tool that primarily affects the ships that are responsible for aggressive gameplay. That is, if DDs push, other ships are more likely to follow. If DDs don't push, there's most likely going to be camping ahead. As such, radar promotes camping. This is further made worse by the most common tip for dealing with radar being just "camp more", but usually phrased in a way that it doesn't appear that way. However, that's how it's taken.

 

Radar should preferably be removed from the game, and relevant ships given some rebalancing.

 

If that's not an option, there are several things that are wrong with radar and how it works:

  • It goes through islands. This should be a relatively simple and obvious fix. Should be. This is a much more intuitive way for radar to work.
  • It completely nullifies detectability. It doesn't matter if you've got a detectability of 11 km or 1.1 km. It's all the same to a 12 km radar. As such, any concealment advantages any ship may have doesn't matter, since they all have to play as if they have a 12 km detectability. The best way to fix this is to make radar give a percentage-based bonus to detecting ships for the radar ship. In practice this would mean multiplying the detectability of the enemy ship in question when determining if it's spotted or not. This would also mean radar is effective against larger ships, so for instance you wouldn't have battleships blinking in and out as they fire their guns. As an added bonus, this would include the previous point automatically.
  • A lot of people argue for radar ships getting separate MM. This just means radar ships have a greater impact on games than non-radar ships, and are therefore stronger. This is not balanced.
  • BBs and more importantly DDs should not have radar, especially not along with smoke. This is just broken.
  • Related to the above, radar ranges longer than detectability is bad and wrong.
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[VRNG]
Players
116 posts
6,101 battles
5 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Radar should preferably be removed from the game, and relevant ships given some rebalancing.

please expand upon this, lets took away all radar from the ships that now have it, for instance how would you rebalance the chapayev/dm/moskva, since they got introduced to the game along with the radar. im just curious what would be your idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UIF]
Players
370 posts
5,701 battles

RADAR IS OP 

Solutions:

1)Best - remove form game

2)Cap radar ships at 1 - 2 per game

3)Limit use to 1 and reduce duration

4)Line of sight - can not radar thru islands. 

End of discussion. 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
966 posts
5,003 battles
53 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Radar is first and foremost an area denial tool. It's an area denial tool that primarily affects the ships that are responsible for aggressive gameplay. That is, if DDs push, other ships are more likely to follow. If DDs don't push, there's most likely going to be camping ahead. As such, radar promotes camping. This is further made worse by the most common tip for dealing with radar being just "camp more", but usually phrased in a way that it doesn't appear that way. However, that's how it's taken.

Or you could just flank and spot the radar guy for your team to kill. But wait, you can't. Why? Because the enemy dd is doing his job and denying you, thus exercising area control. 

 

53 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Radar should preferably be removed from the game, and relevant ships given some rebalancing.

No. This would make dds hilariously OP.  It would either lead to 5 dds per team at minimum, frustrating pretty much everyone, or games in which 3 ships per team have an influence so great you can quit to port once your dds are dead. 

53 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

If that's not an option, there are several things that are wrong with radar and how it works:

  • It goes through islands. This should be a relatively simple and obvious fix. Should be. This is a much more intuitive way for radar to work.

While the intuitive part is correct, a lot of ships would need to expose themselves while being very squishy themselves. Coupled with a later point I will be making, this would make these ships either useless or sacrificial lambs. 

53 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:
  • It completely nullifies detectability. It doesn't matter if you've got a detectability of 11 km or 1.1 km. It's all the same to a 12 km radar. As such, any concealment advantages any ship may have doesn't matter, since they all have to play as if they have a 12 km detectability. The best way to fix this is to make radar give a percentage-based bonus to detecting ships for the radar ship. In practice this would mean multiplying the detectability of the enemy ship in question when determining if it's spotted or not. This would also mean radar is effective against larger ships, so for instance you wouldn't have battleships blinking in and out as they fire their guns. As an added bonus, this would include the previous point automatically.

This idea I like a whole lot. Great one. 

53 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:
  • A lot of people argue for radar ships getting separate MM. This just means radar ships have a greater impact on games than non-radar ships, and are therefore stronger. This is not balanced.

They are not stronger, they are different. It is their ability to exercise map control that people want to balance. They don't have better gun power or other attributes making them better at fighting an enemy directly. 

53 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:
  • BBs and more importantly DDs should not have radar, especially not along with smoke. This is just broken.

Seconded. Talked about this in my thread regarding the YY at length. 

53 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:
  • Related to the above, radar ranges longer than detectability is bad and wrong.

Seconded again. This is problematic if you combine it with radar not working through terrain though since you will have to rely on the enemy to be stupid to get any use out of your radar. 

 

 

Personally I have two large gripes with radar:

- duration on American cruisers. This allows the enemy to set himself up just so well that you hardly have any counter play. 

- radar exceeding spotting range on mino and Worcester. Those have so many aces up their sleeve that they are just gimmick boats to begin with. Combined with ridiculous rof..... Please change that. It also doesn't help that they can dodge torps all day and are fast enough to give chase - with long duration on the radar as well. 

 

An idea would be to tie the cooldown to the duration. So 2 min for Russians, 3 for American/UK, 1 1/2 min for pa dds.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,942 posts
12,778 battles
On 26.07.2018 г. at 12:55 PM, Boris_MNE said:


Then I want one torpedo to solve problem of your permanent radar and floating overall.

 

For starters, I did not pull the realism card. But yeah, I don't mind realistic torps if we get realistic radar. Because: you'll have one volley of them ( very long reload ) and my radar is one permanently, so good luck torping me ( plus I'll be running permanent hydro as well ).

 

Really, what I said was: are you sure you want to pull the realism card in this discussion?

 

 

On 26.07.2018 г. at 5:51 PM, AnotherDuck said:

Radar is first and foremost an area denial tool. It's an area denial tool that primarily affects the ships that are responsible for aggressive gameplay. That is, if DDs push, other ships are more likely to follow. If DDs don't push, there's most likely going to be camping ahead. As such, radar promotes camping. This is further made worse by the most common tip for dealing with radar being just "camp more", but usually phrased in a way that it doesn't appear that way. However, that's how it's taken.

The common tip is not: camp more, the common tip is: don't rush in without thinking (aka over agressive). Atm radar punishes DDs that don't look at the map and don't think about their movement ( or better, they don't plan ahead, they don't think: what if I get spotted … ). So sure, if you want to give DDs so much freedom then by all means. You'll have amazing 7 vs 7 DD games ad the rest BB.

 

Quote

Radar should preferably be removed from the game, and relevant ships given some rebalancing.

So my DM will get long hydro as well? Or better torpedo protection? Or how else do you see this?

 

Quote

 

If that's not an option, there are several things that are wrong with radar and how it works:

  • It goes through islands. This should be a relatively simple and obvious fix. Should be. This is a much more intuitive way for radar to work.

Combined with hydro and proximity spotting.

Quote
  • It completely nullifies detectability. It doesn't matter if you've got a detectability of 11 km or 1.1 km. It's all the same to a 12 km radar. As such, any concealment advantages any ship may have doesn't matter, since they all have to play as if they have a 12 km detectability. The best way to fix this is to make radar give a percentage-based bonus to detecting ships for the radar ship. In practice this would mean multiplying the detectability of the enemy ship in question when determining if it's spotted or not. This would also mean radar is effective against larger ships, so for instance you wouldn't have battleships blinking in and out as they fire their guns. As an added bonus, this would include the previous point automatically.

And this would make radar that much harder to understand. With the very simple mechanic we have today, so many people get cuaght because they don't understand it. And you want to make it more difficult?

 

Quote
  • A lot of people argue for radar ships getting separate MM. This just means radar ships have a greater impact on games than non-radar ships, and are therefore stronger. This is not balanced.

No this means that people feel that an IMBALANCE in amount of radar ships is impacting games. Which might be true (though I guess WG could come up with their magical number proving the opposite ).

 

Quote
  • BBs and more importantly DDs should not have radar, especially not along with smoke. This is just broken.

BBs agreed, DDs without smoke: don't see the issue. They trade one tool for another.

 

Quote
  • Related to the above, radar ranges longer than detectability is bad and wrong.

That's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,693 posts
2,950 battles
On 26.07.2018 г. at 9:51 AM, Oderisson said:

Good idea. Dont forget that if you are so keen on realism ships in smoke also dont see anything. So bye bye team spoting for a ship pewpewing from smoke. I have no issues with radar looking like you proposed if ship firing from smoke sees more or less the same.

Yes, that is sort of realistic as well, but those 'spotters' would report (to the one sitting in smoke) what ship it is, which direction and speed, if shot falls short or not.

In fact the ship in smoke would not see anything, but the commander on the spotter would say something like 'fire torps XX degrees' or something.

So it is 'as good as' seeing, sort of. Same as firting over a monuytain at a ship detected by others.

But the realism is there:  If you sit in smoke and have no spotters, you're 'blind', which is as should be.

 

On 26.07.2018 г. at 10:00 AM, Excavatus said:

He is completely right..

 

RADAR : Radio Detection and Ranging!

Yup. Do not forget the 'ranging' part. I'll get to that later.

 

On 26.07.2018 г. at 12:45 PM, 159Hunter said:

Don't pull the realism card m8. Cause in that case I want permanent radar...

I wouldn't object to that. In fact, I'd applaud it. Permanent green circle instead of just a minute, then.

Unless your radar disk gets shot off. 

 

On 26.07.2018 г. at 2:50 PM, MrConway said:

 

This wouldn't make any sense to me, even in WW2 ships were able to accurately fire at ships they had only detected by radar and could not actually see - your idea would turn radar more into what RL is now.

Yes, because RADAR : Radio Detection and Ranging. You'd know the distance and  the direction of a radared ship. 

We already have the distance  displayed on the visor-thing. And when you rotate your view, the minimap ALREADY gives a line where you look/aim.

No doubt people will be able to hit when using 'my' sort of radar. Especially when it is a DD parked in smoke.

 

You could of course add more stuff to make it easy. But how it is now, is really TOO easy. 

Especially as the radar ship doesn't really have to do anything - the DD is lit up, and everybody around can shoot it.

 

 

 

 

On 26.07.2018 г. at 3:09 PM, Riselotte said:

It doesn't negate smoke any more than a spotter plane and smoke firing skill does. And hydro is typically too short ranged to be of anywhere near the same efficiency unless it is 1v1. In exchange, hydro is up for minutes, radar is up for less than a minute even in the most extreme cases.

I'd not object to longer duration (whole game, unless your radar disk gets shot to bits).

A spotter plane does not spot smoked up DDS, AFAIK. 

 

Smoke firing "skill" is there because when the DD fires, the flames show. 

If the DD doesn;t fire, he usually gets away without being spotted.

Is it skill to fire torps into the smoke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEROZ]
Players
749 posts
6,442 battles
8 hours ago, Boris_MNE said:

 

 

Dude...

 

Smoke nerf had to to everything with quality of gaming. Remember those long long smoke walls etc? Simple wasnt fun.

Well on same way, pretty much radar is killing DDs+ RN cls..   make it little different: If you have LOS on target then they can be radared would be good. But like this bum around you 12km spotted everything is so crap.


And just to understand each other, I spend most of time in carriers.. so radars can not do anything to me.. but I see problem when you have 4 dds on the map and 8 radards in total in the game.. isnt that lil bit too harsh?

No. Dds have to be iin fear of constant threat. They are basically floating tin cans.

 

Personally the only thing i dont like about radar is range. I wont lie to you, i am a bb player, but recently i have got tier 8 baltimore and cleveland combo (liked the special camos). I would change radar range of cruiser to% of detection. Max stealth cleveland detection is radar +100m. That is the only thong wrong about radars in my opinion. And i know higher tiers have it worse. I dont mind numbers, duration and going through islands and think it is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_SM_]
Players
269 posts
10,378 battles
1 hour ago, 159Hunter said:

For starters, I did not pull the realism card. But yeah, I don't mind realistic torps if we get realistic radar. Because: you'll have one volley of them ( very long reload ) and my radar is one permanently, so good luck torping me ( plus I'll be running permanent hydro as well ).

 

Really, what I said was: are you sure you want to pull the realism card in this discussion?

There has been spare torps inn DDs in real life and that reload time is not so long if we think how this game is scaled.Think how long time it would take from ship with 30 knots to go 20 km...And that "radar" in this game...it has never been and is not even today make such a device as it works in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,514 posts
10,110 battles
1 hour ago, _Helmut_Kohl_ said:

 

Ok, go home everyone. 

Discussion is over. 

 

 

You go home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
3 hours ago, ApolloF117 said:

please expand upon this, lets took away all radar from the ships that now have it, for instance how would you rebalance the chapayev/dm/moskva, since they got introduced to the game along with the radar. im just curious what would be your idea.

Mostly, more resilient against BBs. Smaller citadels, maybe. They're already so easily blappable. Well, except maybe Moskva with the upgraded bow armour.

 

2 hours ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

Or you could just flank and spot the radar guy for your team to kill. But wait, you can't. Why? Because the enemy dd is doing his job and denying you, thus exercising area control.

DDs doing area control that way are at least exposing themselves to danger. It's not risk free.

 

2 hours ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

No. This would make dds hilariously OP.  It would either lead to 5 dds per team at minimum, frustrating pretty much everyone, or games in which 3 ships per team have an influence so great you can quit to port once your dds are dead.

One thing that never made sense with this argument is that it never was like that before, and it isn't in games without radar. Radar mostly keeps BBs safe, and they keep CAs and CLs unsafe. You can push against DDs with cruisers, at the very least enough to take cap control.

 

2 hours ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

While the intuitive part is correct, a lot of ships would need to expose themselves while being very squishy themselves. Coupled with a later point I will be making, this would make these ships either useless or sacrificial lambs.

But on the flip side, not having to expose yourself while ruining the day for other players isn't exactly good game design either. As I said above, I'm not adverse to making cruisers less susceptible to being blapped by BBs, which is the main reason most cruisers are so squishy.

 

2 hours ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

They are not stronger, they are different. It is their ability to exercise map control that people want to balance. They don't have better gun power or other attributes making them better at fighting an enemy directly.

They're different in a way people argue is too powerful. If one team has an advantage just because they have more radar ships, then radar ships are not balanced against non-radar ships. If fighting ability actually mattered as much as having radar, then there wouldn't be an overall advantage. You'd have different but equally strong teams. However, that's not what people argue. People argue that one team is plainly stronger, and that's for having more radars. Thus, radar is too powerful.

 

2 hours ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

Seconded again. This is problematic if you combine it with radar not working through terrain though since you will have to rely on the enemy to be stupid to get any use out of your radar.

It depends. With teamwork you can get close enough anyway, and if the gap isn't too large, you can sometimes go straight ahead. There's also ambushing around islands, using friendly smoke, and such tactics. There's also that sometimes it's the enemy taking a risk rather than being stupid.

 

2 hours ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

- duration on American cruisers. This allows the enemy to set himself up just so well that you hardly have any counter play.

Considering how well they shoot over islands, they don't even have to sacrifice that while still being completely safe. And I'd have less problem with the duration if it was line of sight.

 

2 hours ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

- radar exceeding spotting range on mino and Worcester. Those have so many aces up their sleeve that they are just gimmick boats to begin with. Combined with ridiculous rof..... Please change that. It also doesn't help that they can dodge torps all day and are fast enough to give chase - with long duration on the radar as well.

Honestly, Chapayev is worse to come across than those, since those guns are far more accurate. Still the same problem, though. And with hydro dodging torps is pretty much a non-issue.

 

2 hours ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

An idea would be to tie the cooldown to the duration. So 2 min for Russians, 3 for American/UK, 1 1/2 min for pa dds.

This would probably be fair. Although I'd still have it higher on the DDs, since they're still very stealthy.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[VRNG]
Players
116 posts
6,101 battles

ok guys found the solution, lets remove radar, give back dds thier citadel for a week, lets see which one would be hated more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
31 posts
7,989 battles

The problem isn't only that once a DD is radar'ed he's toast, but it also means that because of that, there's little capping and spotting. Instead it seems like the hide/camp (Des Moines/Mino/Worcester-like) playstile is taking over.

I agree that part of the problem is that starting at T7/8 DDs have to change their playstyle, but I would love to see statistics about how long it takes for a DD to get squashed once they get radar'ed vs. once they get spotted.

Don't get me wrong, I play cruisers and BBs mostly (though I do have most of the DDs), but radar - especially 40 seconds - is a death penalty to any DD that is not passive and camping. Add to that that there are waaay too many ships with radar and more are coming. Radar is an easy-mode button for cruisers, it requires no skill at all, you don't even need to have line-of-sight. At least with torpedoes you have to take into account enemy movements, but not so with radar. And since there is absolutely no counter at all, it simply kills the fun and promotes a boring, extremely un-fun and undesirable playstyle.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORCH]
[TORCH]
Beta Tester
487 posts
8,972 battles

So currently when radar is used anything within that range is lit up like a christmas tree for everyone to see and shoot at, through islands or in the open. DD's do not have the hp to withstand a barrage from everyone on the other team due to radar and they cant recover that hp either, i dont mind playing around radar but with 20 min games and cycle radar sometimes you spend most of that time doing very little because you simply cant, which makes for boring gameplay.

 

My Opinions:

 

So with the fact this is an arcade game i wont go into too much realism, some simple things could make the radar meta more fun and bearable to play. Ofcourse these are simply my opinions.

  • Radar is seen by the radar user only. Unless allies are in that radar range too. You can communicate ping locations for your team on the map like you can already. (No spam please)
  • Instead of allowing radar to light up ships physically, it should map ping you (as shown in an early reply) like it does in RL. Ofcourse unless they sail into detection range then they would be spotted anyway like normal.
  • And if the second point would defeat the purpose of it then simply just use the first point. That way it still area denies which is what its for but give DD's more chance of getting away instead of being deleted by everyone.

 

Those are my 2 basic opinions. With the above being said, this would still make radar useful and viable but also still adds a degree of skill and communication while at the same time doesnt hard counter DD's to the point they can get deleted in about 2 seconds asoon as radar is used.

 

Now its nearly 5am so be nice, these are just my opinions. :Smile_hiding:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
109 posts
3 hours ago, Shadeshot said:
  • Radar is seen by the radar user only. Unless allies are in that radar range too. You can communicate ping locations for your team on the map like you can already. (No spam please)
  • Instead of allowing radar to light up ships physically, it should map ping you (as shown in an early reply) like it does in RL. Ofcourse unless they sail into detection range then they would be spotted anyway like normal.
  • And if the second point would defeat the purpose of it then simply just use the first point. That way it still area denies which is what its for but give DD's more chance of getting away instead of being deleted by everyone.

 

Good suggestions. And it is already implemented since radar in storm fronts does exactly that: give the radaring ship a firing solution and just a map location for everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OGHF]
Players
711 posts
12,249 battles
On 26.07.2018 г. at 6:16 PM, Fonfalks said:

RADAR IS OP 

Solutions:

 

3)Limit use to 1 and reduce duration

 

End of discussion. 

You forget that some ships have a Smoke or Radar consumable, so that would have 1 team could be without a radar ship whereas one would have radar.

 

I have this printed off and in eyeline when I play.

Feel free to download and print it or add updates to it.

 

RADAR CHART.xls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XODUS]
Players
786 posts
4,635 battles
6 hours ago, Shadeshot said:

 

My Opinions:

 

So with the fact this is an arcade game i wont go into too much realism, some simple things could make the radar meta more fun and bearable to play. Ofcourse these are simply my opinions.

  • Radar is seen by the radar user only. Unless allies are in that radar range too. You can communicate ping locations for your team on the map like you can already. (No spam please)
  • Instead of allowing radar to light up ships physically, it should map ping you (as shown in an early reply) like it does in RL. Ofcourse unless they sail into detection range then they would be spotted anyway like normal.
  • And if the second point would defeat the purpose of it then simply just use the first point. That way it still area denies which is what its for but give DD's more chance of getting away instead of being deleted by everyone.

 


I more or less agree with that and this is how i would change it to be honest.
With 0.7.7 we have the infamous x marks the spot properly on the mini map so if we just highlight on the map it is possible to hit ship using that mechanism. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OGHF]
Players
711 posts
12,249 battles
41 minutes ago, JaiFoh said:


With 0.7.7 we have the infamous x marks the spot properly on the mini map so if we just highlight on the map it is possible to hit ship using that mechanism. 

Those that say it will not effect ships in smoke is C**P, a Fuso with its dispersion now that it can target the smoke with ease can delete any wounded ship in smoke in one salvo, well done WG :Smile_sad:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XODUS]
Players
786 posts
4,635 battles
2 minutes ago, Cyclops_ said:

Those that say it will not effect ships in smoke is C**P, a Fuso with its dispersion now that it can target the smoke with ease can delete any wounded ship in smoke in one salvo, well done WG :Smile_sad:

 

Agreed
i was in a Division on Notser's Steam testing out the new Raptor Rescue on the PTS, decided to test the new dot on a charging fubuki in the Normandy
5k of damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
290 posts
3,522 battles

As much as I hate radar, I also see its validity in the game, the current mechanics are too strong, especially with ships having lower concealment than their radar range, effectively enabling them to ambush even the stealthiest of destroyers, and this is wrong.

Now we can't remove radar, that would just be silly, but we CAN change how it works. People have suggested it be changed to an LoS model, and I can see the point in that, as most of the time a radar cruiser sails up to an island close to a cap, waits for the cap to start and reveals the capper and gets him severely damage or killed. A change to an LoS model would require the cruiser to value risk vs. reward. 

 

Now a different change I've thought about, and I'm not sure its possible within the engine, is to change the mechanic entirely. Here's how it would work.
 

  • All radars keep their current max range.
  • All radars get an assured detection range of 7.5 km.
  • Beyond the 7.5 km the radared subjects are only shown on the minimap much like you see ships when they are out of your visual range in cyclones and whatnot.

What this would do is that it will keep radar ship's ability to radar through islands, said radar ships will most of the time be too close to the islands to effectively fire at the radared subjects IF he is within 7.5 km. Outside of the 7.5 km range, radar ships would for the most part be able to fire, but much more inaccurately by using the new x marks the spot addition to the minimap. Outside of the 7.5 km it also gives the radar ship and his teammates the ability to know where the target is, and plan their moves accordingly, it could be avoid and ambush, or set up one of their own.

 

This way we would avoid situations where a DD is casually "destroying" around, runs into a Worcester and lose 75-100% of his HP because the Worcester has longer radar range than concealment, it would also lower the effectiveness of radars across the board, yet still keep some functionality.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
5 hours ago, Titan_net said:

And it is already implemented since radar in storm fronts does exactly that: give the radaring ship a firing solution and just a map location for everyone else.

Not exactly. The implementation in cyclones wasn't done for cyclones; it's just an effect on how cyclones are coded. When they hit, they reduce the spotting range by a lot, until it hits 8 km. Spotting range, also known as render distance, is that range you never really care much about normally, since for almost all situations you've got enough of it and there's little need to see outside it.

 

However, since radar is coded to just extend assured acquisition range, it doesn't matter why a ship would normally not be seen, since that overrides everything. Mountains, spotting range, concealment, smoke, mirrors. All of those are null, since everything within assured acquisition range is always detected and rendered. This would also be true for hydro if it had a +8 km range.

 

For other ships, their spotting range doesn't extend that far, so they often don't see the radar targets rendered. This is exactly as if someone used a radar to spot a ship, and a ship on the other side of the map wouldn't see that ship, because it's outside spotting range.

 

TL;DR: A ship is always rendered and spotted if it's in assured acquisition range. A ship is rendered if it's in spotting range and it's spotted. Cyclones just reduces spotting range so much that it's lower than assured acquisition range with radar active.

 

My personal opinion is that assured acquisition range is a programming shortcut that never should've been coded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
82 posts
9,176 battles

I think they just need to make the match maker ensure that equal numbers of radar on on each side, that's fair. They won't remove radar or introduce some "counter" so they just need to make sure both sides have equal numbers of radar. I always find these threads turn into some player ranting about a certain class of ship or camping of one form or another but the real focus should be that wargaming should stop introducing game breaking gimmicks when they don't have enough balancing parameters built into the game to deal with them. Don't turn WOWS into WOT, if you do it's doomed to a long slow death. We already have shades of WOT creeping in, the constant power creep, the poor matchmaking where you seem to spend most of your time up-tired ( they have even just admitted this in WOT for tier 8 tanks ( 80% + of games they are uptired )) and the constant flow of gimmicks that tend to damage the game more than add any kind of useful "flavour" for the ship class/nation. 

 

I stopped putting money into wargaming products quite some time ago and have just been using the gold I had in my WOT account to turn into premium time that I use in WOWS, I'm not putting another penny into any of their products until they address the obvious issues and would suggest any other player reading this do the same. They will only change course when they are hit in the wallet but I think they may actually change in time so I'm not going to desert the game just yet. I deserted WOT years ago and have hardly played it since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×