Jump to content
You need to play a total of 1 battles to post in this section.
The_EURL_Guy

Updated Mechanics for Flooding and the Surveillance Radar Consumable

106 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
89 posts
14,456 battles

from the portal:

"If a destroyer plays with caution and stays at the edge of the consumable’s detection range, such as when trying to capture a key area for example, she will be able to leave the zone and return there every 5 seconds. By doing so, she will only be periodically visible to a radar-carrying ship."

 

So, now the dd's have to stay 10km away (or 12km for Rus bias).

In the normal maps with the islands this means there is no more capping? 12km is bigger then a cap circle.

(how do you see this being played in 'epicenter'. why isnt that removed btw? NOBODY likes it. same for storm, thunder, blizzard, whatever. remove it. useless to play in storm with visibility 8km, if you radar up to 12km. completely brainless!)

 

What new gamemode will be provided where capping is not needed?

Edited by AngryDragon70
added "epicenter" and "weather" thoughts
  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
18,899 posts
12,066 battles

4 flooding areas with adapted flooding damage would have been better than 2.

Flooding still does too much damage and players will repair it as soon as possible.

  • Funny 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DGH-W]
[DGH-W]
Players
113 posts
14,100 battles

Wow... another real realistic change. Radar shows the ship on the mini map, but you have to wait 6 seconds before she becomes visible to the 'eye'.

 

and the radar is visible like a pulse... like in sci-fi  movies and above the ship is an icon (hologram?)... because people don't communicate in chat, so the program does that for you.

 

Guys, Guys, Guys, what are you doing the past few months, out of ideas so all this weird stuff comes up? This was a fairly realistic strategy game.

We've had schoolgirls, space and other silly camo's. 5 planes launching from 1 or 2 catapults, Carrier with unlimited planes. Planes that can become invisible by pressing an F key, planes that can practically teleport over the map so fast. New ships that are utterly useless (Le Terrible), if you fart you get a radar consumable, DDs that can kill BBs with their guns. Carrier that when playing uptier are absolutely chanceless. One game you shoot 69 planes down with the Montana, next game 2.

 

Can you please please stop!!

  • Cool 17
  • Bad 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
44 posts
7,496 battles

Do you want to remove destroyer players from the game? Cause that's how you remove destroyers from the game. There's already very few of them with the introduction of the new CVs because of the large amount of spotting they provide. Now you want to buff radars so they can stay spotted even more.

 

I don't really care about rounding some of the numbers, like 9.9 to 10 km range. But for most it's an excessive amount. Why not keep Edinburgh and Neptune radar at 9 and 9.5 respectively? At least that way there's still some difference between tiers. The same goes for Baltimore and Buffalo. That way there's a clear distinction, tier 8 gets 9km, tier 9 gets 9.5 and tier 10 gets 10 km radar.
I'm fine with keeping light cruiser radars at 9 km for all of them.
 

Also, Russian bias much? What's the point in delayed spotting for the rest of the team if you extend the range and DURATION of the Russian radars by almost the amount spotting is delayed? Delayed spotting by 6 seconds for the rest of the team. Russian radar gets an extra 5 second duration. And that 300m more range makes up more than that 1 second delay that's left.

On top of that Black is already an extremely strong ship, not quite overpowered but getting there. There's no need to increase its radar duration even further. I could stand behind the decision to give the Pan-Asian destroyers some love though since they actually have to sacrifice smoke to equip their radar.

I'm interested to see how the new flooding mechanics work out. For now I think it is (again) a huge nerf to destroyers, especially the ones that rely on flooding to do their damage, like IJN torpedo boats. If you can actually get that double flood going it does slightly more damage to battleships and Kron and Stalin than before. But on the other hand it does a lot less damage to cruisers and destroyers. The latter however will most likely die from two torpedoes anyway or very nearly, so a flooding that can't be repaired will finish the job even with reduced damage.

Conclusion: I am not at all pleased with these changes.

 

At least we can now differentiate between different kinds of detection, which is a big improvement.

  • Cool 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
89 posts
14,456 battles
7 minutes ago, RamboCras said:

Guys, Guys, Guys, what are you doing the past few months, out of ideas so all this weird stuff comes up? This was a fairly realistic strategy game.

 

 

^^ this! i think you nailed it exactly!

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
19 posts
18 minutes ago, RamboCras said:

Wow... another real realistic change. Radar shows the ship on the mini map, but you have to wait 6 seconds before she becomes visible to the 'eye'.

 

and the radar is visible like a pulse... like in sci-fi  movies and above the ship is an icon (hologram?)... because people don't communicate in chat, so the program does that for you.

 

Guys, Guys, Guys, what are you doing the past few months, out of ideas so all this weird stuff comes up? This was a fairly realistic strategy game.

(snip)

 

Can you please please stop!!

I beg to disagree here, to me it sounds more realistic. For the ship with the radar, the enemy will appear right away - and that's correct. But IRL, if you got an echo from a friendly ship, you didn't get enemy position instantly. You needed to get the data about the enemy position, distance, course - and all of this could've taken six seconds easily (I'd even say six seconds is very fast, but the game is sped up, of course).

 

Just imagine - you are captain of a DD during WW2 and CL next to you spots an enemy with a radar. You will know about the enemy ship almost immediately (that's the map), but the exact position will take time. You won't "reveal" enemy ship as soon as friendly's radar spots it.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PZK]
Players
8 posts
4,096 battles

great update! only I would like that flooding is more deadly than fire because you eat more shells than torpedoes, so getting hit by torps is rarer. I would make it last 50-60 sec and higher damage than fire by 1,5x

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GG-]
Players
220 posts
13,333 battles

Even now in tier X games there are only 1-2 DDs per side most of the time. Flooding nerf ? I expect more games with zero DDs. Who would play them with 2 CV per side and not even a prospect to flood sth ???

and on top of that - radar "nerf" that is a buff in fact. 30 sec base (!) 12 km radar on Moskva/Stalin ??? 36 sec with module, rechargable every 2 minutes with premium consumable ..... OMG why you decided to kill DDs ????? 

 

 

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ANG3L]
Players
44 posts
6,023 battles

uh... think this through before you complain. 

 

Before (now), a yamato could potentially lose 60.000 health ( roughly ) from a max duration flood.  however, he would without question repair it if and when possible. 

 

Under the new system, that same yamato, assuming two floods, could lose 40.000 health. But.... he'd be a lot less likely to repair it, at least if its just one. Just like in most situations a good BB player doesnt repair one fire. 

 

Wait and see, before you cry the end of DD play. Try it. Im sure WG will be looking at  how its functioning live, and adjust it accordingly -  just as they currently are with CVs *shrugs*.

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
121 posts
6,993 battles
2 hours ago, The_EURL_Guy said:

Why are the changes necessary? What exactly is changing? How will the changes influence habitual game strategy?


Read it on the portal

Looks like WG is realy taking good care of the Russians ships.  Range radar 12 k and active for 30 sec.

  • Cool 8
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,508 posts
11,466 battles

WG: We're nerfing flooding to the ground so that people start ignoring it; that will cause more damage to be dealt by it :Smile_trollface:

Also, we're making it easier to remember the ranges of Radars... BY BUFFING THEM ALL TO THE T10 STANDARD:Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface:

Also also, we're introducing a grace period of 6 seconds when only the Radar ship will be shooting you, the rest occupied with turning their guns, as usual. To compensate for the fact that they will be turning these guns based on the icon on minimap rather than your rendered hull, we're increasing the durations of all the duration of all Radars that previously were short enough that you could survive 'till they ran out :Smile_trollface:

 

Damn, DDs receive so much love this patch that their backsides are going to hurt - and it's presented as HELPING THEM because, say, people won't be so cautious of floodings :Smile_teethhappy:

 

 

Also, the order of spotting

Quote

    Assured Acquisition
    Hydroacoustic Search
    Surveillance Radar
    Detection by sea
    Detection by air

Oh, sure, because being spotted by a stray plane is more important than being spotted by an invisible DD, right?

 

But, the stupid order is less of a problem, the main thing is... NO MATTER WHAT ORDER YOU PICK, EVEN IF YOU MAKE IT CUSTOMIZABLE BY PLAYER, IT WILL BE BS.

What we need is a system that shows you in what ways your ship is detected, NOT just one option picked based on an arbitrary order.

 

  • Cool 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
121 posts
6,993 battles
1 hour ago, Constantijn2 said:

Do you want to remove destroyer players from the game? Cause that's how you remove destroyers from the game. There's already very few of them with the introduction of the new CVs because of the large amount of spotting they provide. Now you want to buff radars so they can stay spotted even more.

 

I don't really care about rounding some of the numbers, like 9.9 to 10 km range. But for most it's an excessive amount. Why not keep Edinburgh and Neptune radar at 9 and 9.5 respectively? At least that way there's still some difference between tiers. The same goes for Baltimore and Buffalo. That way there's a clear distinction, tier 8 gets 9km, tier 9 gets 9.5 and tier 10 gets 10 km radar.
I'm fine with keeping light cruiser radars at 9 km for all of them.
 

Also, Russian bias much? What's the point in delayed spotting for the rest of the team if you extend the range and DURATION of the Russian radars by almost the amount spotting is delayed? Delayed spotting by 6 seconds for the rest of the team. Russian radar gets an extra 5 second duration. And that 300m more range makes up more than that 1 second delay that's left.

On top of that Black is already an extremely strong ship, not quite overpowered but getting there. There's no need to increase its radar duration even further. I could stand behind the decision to give the Pan-Asian destroyers some love though since they actually have to sacrifice smoke to equip their radar.

I'm interested to see how the new flooding mechanics work out. For now I think it is (again) a huge nerf to destroyers, especially the ones that rely on flooding to do their damage, like IJN torpedo boats. If you can actually get that double flood going it does slightly more damage to battleships and Kron and Stalin than before. But on the other hand it does a lot less damage to cruisers and destroyers. The latter however will most likely die from two torpedoes anyway or very nearly, so a flooding that can't be repaired will finish the job even with reduced damage.

Conclusion: I am not at all pleased with these changes.

 

At least we can now differentiate between different kinds of detection, which is a big improvement.

Looks like im not the only one who noticed. But trust me your comments are a scream in the wind. People will say you dont know how to play and how things works  ( in social media we call them trolls ;) .  Just enjoy the graphics of the game and for the rest pffff not going to make a comment any more.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DIC]
Players
203 posts
9,402 battles

Are my eyes deceiving me or did Wargaming once again troll us a bit by using ALASKA, out of all ships, as the headline image for those news?

 

So, Wargaming, once more: when will you release Alaska? And what about Wichita and Azuma while we're at it?

 

 

On topic: I guess we once again have to wait and see how these changes play out. I'm puzzled as to why they felt the need to significantly buff russian radar while only putting minor adjustments, if any, on other ships. I also still remain unconvinced that russian radar was at any time back then superior in range compared to it's counterparts. If my historical knowledge serves me right the Brits and Americans were ahead during WW2 in detection technology, alongside the Germans.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ARYA]
Players
494 posts
11,671 battles

This is a not a nerf to radar you buffed it again !!!

Imagine a DD staying in her somke because of CV stupid rockets to cap and a mighty SOVIET cruiser radars you from map edge !!!! time it takes to accelerate to full speed is more than 4 seconds and you have not even crossed that 300 m buff !!!!

 

Please before implementing more problems and bugs at least solve your last problems !!!!!! still AA need work 'still CV vs DD needs work....

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
37 posts
3,512 battles
22 minutes ago, Varian_Dorn said:

Are my eyes deceiving me or did Wargaming once again troll us a bit by using ALASKA, out of all ships, as the headline image for those news?

It's the Salem.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
52 posts
6,914 battles

Still a little fuzy on how Russian radar so easily eclipses UK/ US radar of the era - surely a chance to even this up has been missed.

 

I know it's a game, but still........

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Beta Tester
292 posts
3,918 battles

Like Rbay said. The old system where flooding was death to a ship when Repari was on cooldown was not exactly great. 

Good players knew when to stop flooding  and often took the fire damage just too stop that flooding. 

 

New system could mean that they will allow one flood instead of just auto stop the damage.

 

But of course some ships will benefit from it and others lose. My Asashio will not lose a lot I guess. 

It is borderline impossible to get those long lasting floods since hitting with two different waves of torps is hard and people repair always.

 

But we are living in test server times. They throw so many changes it is difficult to know what happends in the future.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIN]
Players
4 posts
5,741 battles

new flooding change is far better than brutal system 60% of HP
you can improve it by reduction of time or % of flood and add one more afflicted flood
also improve fire prevention (commander skill) for flooding too
by change in Surveillance Radar Consumable lot of player back to play by Destroyer in high tier

 

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6 posts
9,136 battles

*edited*  

Edited by Jahpero
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to wrong language.
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4CRED]
Players
4 posts
4,958 battles

I try to be as civil as possible in light of these proposals, so only suggest to give a similar refund for IJN destroyes that you offered for carriers. Free XP for ship research, credits for hulls and torpedo-related modules, dubloons for permanent camos.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2 posts
8,186 battles

Bigger radar ranges and longer durations, that 6 seconds delay is nog going to cut it.
How about line of sight blocking and/or ghosting the radared ship in a 3 second delay for allies not using their radar.
I would even go as far as only showing radar on the minimap.
 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COBRA]
Players
40 posts
10,888 battles

Why more flooding on stalingrad and kronstadt? fire duration to 60sec like BB isnt enough,now it has to leak quickly?

why dont you put them in BB section,so we dont need to call it CAs!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×