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

Same Detection Marker for Hydro and Radar

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
49 posts
4,398 battles

Hello people,

 

I'm playing mainly DD and as you know there lots of way to blow up a DD but the detection holds the grip. I don't know what you are thinking but can WG please make different spotting markers for radar and hydro?  Because most of the time I dug in behind an island contesting the cap and the enemy team slowly pushes on me so they pop their radars and hydros, planes everything they have got to detect me. An another example is that lets say I'm in smoke and suddenly I got detected by radar or hydro. Ofcourse I will run the hell out of there but I still need to know what's spotting me because if it's a hydro then I can know there is a very close DD or CA or relatively close BB to me. I like to know what detects me in that time so I can calculate my next move. Hydros lasting forever but radars don't. Also as you all know hydros can detect torps from miles away. That's why I believe if there will be different spotting markers for these two skills it can improve the gameplay.

 

Regards..

pulpgamer_zd

  • Cool 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
825 posts
12,813 battles

Would be nice also would be hilarious to have chaff consumable to break radar lock for say 15-20s

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,246 posts
7,277 battles
29 minutes ago, pulpgamer_zd said:

Hello people,

 

I'm playing mainly DD and as you know there lots of way to blow up a DD but the detection holds the grip. I don't know what you are thinking but can WG please make different spotting markers for radar and hydro?  Because most of the time I dug in behind an island contesting the cap and the enemy team slowly pushes on me so they pop their radars and hydros, planes everything they have got to detect me. An another example is that lets say I'm in smoke and suddenly I got detected by radar or hydro. Ofcourse I will run the hell out of there but I still need to know what's spotting me because if it's a hydro then I can know there is a very close DD or CA or relatively close BB to me. I like to know what detects me in that time so I can calculate my next move. Hydros lasting forever but radars don't. Also as you all know hydros can detect torps from miles away. That's why I believe if there will be a different spotting markers for these two skill it can improve the gameplay.

 

Regards..

pulpgamer_zd

This was already requested many times before and WGs answer to that if i renember correctly breaks down to "we are happy with how it is and there still needs to be a challenge for DDs to make out what spots them" which is fancy saying for "Jeah may be a good idea but Hydro and Radar use the same code just with changed duration and range and we won't bother to make a new one each".

I am too lazy though to search for the relevant posts right now but you can try. :Smile_honoring:

Still would be very happy if they did ofc. as I am a DD main too.

24 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

Would be nice also would be hilarious to have chaff consumable to break radar lock for say 15-20s

It's bad gamedesign to counter a gimmick with a gimmick. This suggestion should never happen (I hope).

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ANV]
[ANV]
Players
167 posts

I agree with OP. Different indicators for radar and hydro please!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,353 posts
13,959 battles
29 minutes ago, pulpgamer_zd said:

Because most of the time I dug in behind an island contesting the cap and the enemy team slowly pushes on me so they pop their radars and hydros, planes everything they have got to detect me. An another example is that lets say I'm in smoke and suddenly I got detected by radar or hydro. Ofcourse I will run the hell out of there but I still need to know what's spotting me because if it's a hydro then I can know there is a very close DD or CA or relatively close BB to me. I like to know what detects me in that time so I can calculate my next move. Hydros lasting forever but radars don't. Also as you all know hydros can detect torps from miles away.

I think, you just pinpointed the exact reason why WG decided to NOT differentiate the markers for Hydro & Radar. That would just give away too much info I guess. Kinda like having different detection markers for whether you were detected by a DD, CV, CA/CL or a BB. Ce est la vie. It won't bother me either way. :cap_old:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,246 posts
7,277 battles
9 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

I think, you just pinpointed the exact reason why WG decided to NOT differentiate the markers for Hydro & Radar. That would just give away too much info I guess. Kinda like having different detection markers for whether you were detected by a DD, CV, CA/CL or a BB. Ce est la vie. It won't bother me either way. :cap_old:

As long as Hydro and Radar penetrate solid objects (which isn't going to change apparently according to the latest news) this argumentation doesn't really hold water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
49 posts
4,398 battles

 

17 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

This was already requested many times before and WGs answer to that if i renember correctly breaks down to "we are happy with how it is and there still needs to be a challenge for DDs to make out what spots them" which is fancy saying for "Jeah may be a good idea but Hydro and Radar use the same code just with changed duration and range and we won't bother to make a new one each".

I am too lazy though to search for the relevant posts right now but you can try. :Smile_honoring:

It's bad gamedesign to counter a gimmick with a gimmick. This suggestion should never happen (I hope).

 

Challenge for DD always there anyway. I'm not saying that radar is OP or nerf hydro etc. I just want to know what spots me at that time. 

 

9 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

I think, you just pinpointed the exact reason why WG decided to NOT differentiate the markers for Hydro & Radar. That would just give away too much info I guess. Kinda like having different detection markers for whether you were detected by a DD, CV, CA/CL or a BB. Ce est la vie. It won't bother me either way. :cap_old:

 

Well then they can always just say "you're detected" so why there is different markers for ships and airplanes ?..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,353 posts
13,959 battles
4 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

As long as Hydro and Radar pentrate solid objects (which isn't going to change apparently according to the latest news) this argumentation doesn't really hold water.

Well, since I am just basically obtuse and irrational I also oppose that most fervently. Radar / hydro should NOT be the ground penetrating kind. But oh well... :Smile_smile:

1 minute ago, pulpgamer_zd said:

Well then they can always just say "you're detected" so why there is different markers for ships and airplanes ?..

No idea why actually. But I guess they might have considered that as reasonable info give out. But, as I said, don't really care either way nice if they do, won't mind if they don't. :cap_tea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,246 posts
7,277 battles
3 minutes ago, pulpgamer_zd said:

 

 

Challenge for DD always there anyway. I'm not saying that radar is OP or nerf hydro etc. I just want to know what spots me at that time. 

That's what WG says not me. I would be happy too if they did like you suggested.

Renember those are the same guys that say Radar being based on line of sight would be too complicated for the average player to understand and would nerf radar too much.  :cap_old:

Quote

 

Well then they can always just say "you're detected" so why there is different markers for ships and airplanes ?..

exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,666 posts
7,219 battles

Requested (and sadly ignored) many times.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,212 posts
5,611 battles

Id like to add:

If you are hardspotted, and there is radar/Hydro/planes spotting you at the same time, all types of detection should be visible.

Being hardspotted should not overrule the others.

 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FRDF]
Players
182 posts
2,810 battles
16 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Id like to add:

If you are hardspotted, and there is radar/Hydro/planes spotting you at the same time, all types of detection should be visible.

Being hardspotted should not overrule the others.

 

THIS.

Countless smokes used in vain.. just show at least that I'm spotted in more than one way if they don't want to show all the icons, example hardspotted and small + next to it, you still would not know if its hydro, radar or planes but you would know that there is something else than that ship close to you that spots you.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Players
371 posts
1,636 battles
21 minutes ago, Naesil said:

Countless smokes used in vain.. just show at least that I'm spotted in more than one way if they don't want to show all the icons, example hardspotted and small + next to it, you still would not know if its hydro, radar or planes but you would know that there is something else than that ship close to you that spots you.

Yes, but the problem is... what if there is a ship within hydro/radar range but it's not active? Then you still smoke up and still have a wasted smoke when he pops the consumable :). Not that this request/suggestion is a bad idea, just it probably wouldn't fix as much as you or I would at first assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,212 posts
5,611 battles
3 minutes ago, Rusty_9 said:

Yes, but the problem is... what if there is a ship within hydro/radar range but it's not active? Then you still smoke up and still have a wasted smoke when he pops the consumable :). Not that this request/suggestion is a bad idea, just it probably wouldn't fix as much as you or I would at first assume.

 

The difference would be not using smoke in the first place. If you werent hardspotted, you would have that info, so it doesnt really make sense to NOT have it

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FRDF]
Players
182 posts
2,810 battles
2 minutes ago, Rusty_9 said:

Yes, but the problem is... what if there is a ship within hydro/radar range but it's not active? Then you still smoke up and still have a wasted smoke when he pops the consumable :). Not that this request/suggestion is a bad idea, just it probably wouldn't fix as much as you or I would at first assume.

Yes ofc but at least I would know that this moment nothing else spots me, and then I can form my decision to use smoke or not based on if there is radar ships close, have they used their radar etc.

 

It would not be massive help, more of a quality of life improvement.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Players
371 posts
1,636 battles

Yep @DFens_666 and @Naesil I agree on the QoL improvement of this additional information, and you obviously understand the decision making process (probably better than I do) but I'm just wary of coming up with amazing ideas that 'fix' all issues without really considering the impact... been there done that and got a closet full of T-shirts:Smile_trollface:

 

Consider me the devils advocate in this case:etc_red_button:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
2,928 posts
8,288 battles

Hi all,

 

4 hours ago, pulpgamer_zd said:

Hello people,

 

I'm playing mainly DD and as you know there lots of way to blow up a DD but the detection holds the grip. I don't know what you are thinking but can WG please make different spotting markers for radar and hydro?  Because most of the time I dug in behind an island contesting the cap and the enemy team slowly pushes on me so they pop their radars and hydros, planes everything they have got to detect me. An another example is that lets say I'm in smoke and suddenly I got detected by radar or hydro. Ofcourse I will run the hell out of there but I still need to know what's spotting me because if it's a hydro then I can know there is a very close DD or CA or relatively close BB to me. I like to know what detects me in that time so I can calculate my next move. Hydros lasting forever but radars don't. Also as you all know hydros can detect torps from miles away. That's why I believe if there will be different spotting markers for these two skills it can improve the gameplay.

 

Regards..

pulpgamer_zd

 

I tried similar thing several times both here:

 

 

and at Reddit:

 

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
1,881 posts
5,337 battles

Didn't someone come up with a rather splendid graphic illustrating how this could work, without overwhelming the interface, the last time this came up?

 

Sadly, I don't recall who it was, but it was excellent work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
840 posts
8,095 battles

As a DD is my preferred ship I have to ask the OP why you need the distinction between hydro or radar. You should know from the mini map, if you're paying attention, what ships are near to you..

 

Although I am not flaming the OP for asking for a distinction I think it is unnecessary. The minute the detection icon flashes up you're going to want to get out of detection fast aren't you.. If the detection ends quickly it is likely hydro if not and detection stays on longer then it is radar.. As a DD I am far more interested in getting to safety than worrying about the method of detection..

 

I believe it is overkill..regardless of whether it be Hydro or radar that detects you....don't get away and out of detection the likelihood is that you will die or suffer severe damage..

 

This isn't a game for babies..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
1,881 posts
5,337 battles
20 minutes ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

As a DD I am far more interested in getting to safety than worrying about the method of detection.

This is a good point, but I would still like to know which I've been zapped by for certain (if, for example, it's both), as it would inform the optimum evasion strategy - beyond, obviously, get an island between you asap.

 

I would still file this as QoL issue, rather than massively serious though.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
840 posts
8,095 battles

@Verblonde I can see the point of the OP and to others as well who feel it important.. I can also understand where you're coming from .. for me personally it isn't an issue but each player has their own individual play styles and requirements so nobody is right nor wrong whichever side of the fence they sit on this one.. If it is implemented I will say okay, if it is not okay.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
49 posts
4,398 battles
1 hour ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

As a DD is my preferred ship I have to ask the OP why you need the distinction between hydro or radar. You should know from the mini map, if you're paying attention, what ships are near to you..

 

Although I am not flaming the OP for asking for a distinction I think it is unnecessary. The minute the detection icon flashes up you're going to want to get out of detection fast aren't you.. If the detection ends quickly it is likely hydro if not and detection stays on longer then it is radar.. As a DD I am far more interested in getting to safety than worrying about the method of detection..

 

I believe it is overkill..regardless of whether it be Hydro or radar that detects you....don't get away and out of detection the likelihood is that you will die or suffer severe damage..

 

This isn't a game for babies..

 

When you are behind an island sometimes they can detect you without getting detected. So I like to know what kind of skill caused my detection because it can be a BB with 6 km near of me or it can be a Des Moines 10 km away from me that's why it's better to know what spotting you. For example I was playing with my Lightning, map was Okinawa. 

 

indir.thumb.png.0cdbbe2b5ba735f7be2d46d9b5333b72.png

 

I marked my position as red X. Yellow arrows shows the enemy Seattle and white arrows shows 2 enemy Kurfüsts, a LoYang and a Gearing and I believe there was a Minoutor behind them aswell. Green arrows were our ships. I was pinned down and I couldn't move. Now there was 2 problem with this situation. First if that was radar I would be detected if I try to break free and DD's with the help of their BB's could wreck me. If it's a hydro I could try to slowly reverse back and get out of the range of hydro. So knowing this is more important than to be in a cover because eventually they can rush me and kill me. 

 

So it's not about being a "baby" it's more about tactics and help your team to win as staying alive...

 

For those who curious about that game, Seattle came around with the Gearing, I was be able to torp the Seattle but Gearing got me eventually. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
713 posts
4,977 battles
1 hour ago, Verblonde said:

 but I would still like to know which I've been zapped by for certain (if, for example, it's both), as it would inform the optimum evasion strategy - beyond, obviously, get an island between you asap.

 

I would still file this as QoL issue, rather than massively serious though.

...and this is the issue here.... it is what action to take depending on how you have been spotted, by radar or hydro , both have different ranges and duration so making the wrong decision could mean an early and unnecessary trip back to port...

I would like to be able to make an informed choice rather than just sort of ...guess/panic ..:Smile_amazed:

 

w0XamiG.gif

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
840 posts
8,095 battles

@pulpgamer_zd As I said there are people who want this and people who don't need it.. there is no right nor wrong in any comment on this post and I can understand your point..

 

My comment about it not being a game for Babies meant that we can have too much information and was not an attack on you at all.. apologies if it came across that way.

 

As I said, if WG implement it okay if not okay.. I do just as well without it personally.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×