Updated Mechanics for Flooding and the Surveillance Radar Consumable

[bondone]

13 hours ago, ledgeri said:

I am here to copy past it :)

AT LEASTthey shoul put it as survey, to find out what the population wants, as the order...
Also ask any player, give them the size of the actual icon and you will get a good icon what shows all at once if needed! Bu no...

NEVER HAPPEN ! THE CUSTOMER IS NEVER RIGHT ,otherwise we would be back to before 0.8.0 and having fun !

 I don't play much now . just reading the post is pain enough .

[Seinx]

"On one hand, the duration of flooding and the damage it can cause will decrease, but on the other hand, it will be possible for the ship to be afflicted by up to two floods at a time in total. These can occur at each of the aft- and fore-ends of a ship"

 

So you mean to "compensate" the huge loss of damage i have to magically hit torps on front and back of ship at the same time when people already turn their ship to only get hit by one max, unless they are bb players from Jingles videos completely unaware of aswd hacks.

[Captain_Newman]

1 hour ago, Seinx said:

So you mean to "compensate" the huge loss of damage i have to magically hit torps on front and back of ship at the same time when people already turn their ship to only get hit by one max, unless they are bb players from Jingles videos completely unaware of aswd hacks.

 

WG has no idea what compensating even means. They said they wanted to remove the ability of a CV to permaspot the whole map, so they "fix" that by giving a CV control over only one squad at a time.

 

... and then they introduce multiple CV's per team, even in t10, and equip them with infinite planes that can almost teleport around the map, especially rocket planes, essentially removing stealth. Good job.

 

Want to help dd's, wg? Get rid of sky cancer the majority of players doesn't want anyway. Radar is manageable for any good dd player with a brain the way it is. You're even adjusting ranges so it's easier to remember.. this catering to the lowest common denominator is giving me a headache.

[Catslave]

12 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

Once again WG proves they know nothing about the game, as if the carrier garbage less then 2 weeks ago wasn't bad enough.

 

Radar

Radar range and action time gets increased across the board, so now DD have to stay even further and even longer away. Doesn't even remotely impact the main problem here: 5+ radar on each team. In fact with the increased action time it's now even easier to perma-radar an area. A tiny hint for you guys at wargaming: +20% (the radar module) action time on a 30seconds radar adds more time then +20% on a 25 second radar.

 

IX Black – increasing from 20 to 22 seconds

VIII Hsienyang – increasing from 15 to 20 seconds

IX Chung Mu – increasing from 17 to 22 seconds

X Yueyang – increasing from 20 to 25 seconds

 

 

Esp Black and Yueyang are considered frigging OP, they have smoke, excellent concealment, excellent manouverability and no citadel. Wargaming already proved their "expertise" by nerfing every single stat on the Yueyang without touching the radar, which is the root problem for the ship being OP. Now they even buff it....

 

Flooding

 

The new mechanics of Update 0.8.1 should make players less cautious about flooding, meaning that they won't reserve use of the Damage Control Party consumable for such situations.

 

Yes, because loosing propulsion (which gets even buffed) for 40 seconds as well as 10-20% of your HP from a single hit has absolutely no impact .. it's not like a loss of propulsion makes it harder to dodge anything or similar....

 

The Juliet Yankee Bissotwo signal which decreases the duration of flooding by 20% will undoubtedly become more useful as a result.

 

Yes, because obviously reducing 1 80seconds flood by 20% makes alot less difference then reducing 2 40second floods ... math wizards....anyone ever told you that percentage changes have the same impact no matter the base value because their absolute value is based on the base value ? ... actually a 20% reduction to a 90seconds flooding is far more valuable then a 20% reduction to 2 40seconds. First of the old 90second flooding does alot more damage, second you shave 18seconds of the dot and speed debuff, while the 40seconds flooding you only shave 8 seconds off it. If anything this change devalues the flag and similar effects.

 

The duration of flooding and the damage an individual instance can cause will decrease, making it less of a threat for new players, and allowing more experienced players to manage their ships' HP with greater efficiency.

 

yeah, because with the old flooding a BB would loose 60% of it's HP over 90 seconds, with the new mechanic that same BB will only loose 90% of their HP (20% per 40seconds per end) over 90 seconds assuming perma flood on both ends ... good job greatly increasing the damage potential of flooding ... and then trying to sell it as a nerf to flooding.

 

Skillful commanders will be able to benefit from this by effectively using one end of the ship (either the aft or bow) to mitigate the damage they take from torpedoes.

 

Of course, because all ships can just turn 180° within a second on the spot to make sure that aft catches all the torpedoes coming from the side. That whole thing has only any merit when the torpedoing player is a moron and torpedos a nose (or aft) in ship, the "skill" of the victim has close to no impact here .

 

So, has any of that actually been carefully considered ? Has anyone bothered wasting more then the time needed to empty a glass of vodka on actually thinking this through ? Has any of this ever been tested ?

Because just by reading this text for the first time i can pretty much predict this to be only second to the aircraft carrier rework in terms of gamebreaking garbage....

[Raziel_Walker]

If the general radar range had been nerfed to 9 km instead of buffed to 10 km it would have been a lot better.

And IJN torpedo concealment could use a buff! 

[Catslave]

Alle 12/2/2019 alle 15:50, SanyaJuutilainen ha scritto:

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.

Here some "realism" for you: pretty much every ship had radar and sonar to some degree. Identification of echos was more often then not done with actual visual contact (and even then failed at times, friendly fire or friendly waving at enemy ships included ... there's even the story where german fighter tried to defend a british ship from british bombers...). Radar and sonar only told you that there is some echo at estimated 10km ENE ... nothing more, it was not like Magical Girl Radar-chan telling you "there is a hostile Iowa class battleship 8723.5km distance, bearing 225°, moving at 18.5kts". There wasn't any guarantee that the echo was even a ship...

So why the hell does e.g. Buffalo instantly identify all hostiles in the vicinity while the Iowa right behind him has to wait 6 seconds ? Not including that neither radar nor sonar work too well through landmasses like islands, sonar doesn't work too well when you're motoring at full speed or next to a massive BB motoring at max speed etc.

 

Alle 12/2/2019 alle 16:35, RBay ha scritto:

 

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*.

that made me lol. Since the very first gameplay trailer people have been listing problems with the cv rework. Through 3+ testphases players, CC's and ST's have recorded years worth of videos, written libraries of threads and created mountains of tables, spreadsheets and graphs pointing out the problems and flaws with the rework, describing in vivid detail how it is stupidly overpowered and offered alternatives ... wargaming didn't *edited* and released it as is. 

the release of GC, Belfast, Balansgrad, the nerf to Yueyang, the nerfs to IJN torpedo boats, the Graf Zeppelin disaster ... now the cv rework.

 

It takes alot of "phantasy supporting pills" to seriously say something like "Im sure WG will be looking at  how its functioning live, and adjust it accordingly -  just as they currently are with CVs" after all that.

 

Alle 13/2/2019 alle 01:49, Seinx ha scritto:

So you mean to "compensate" the huge loss of damage i have to magically hit torps on front and back of ship at the same time when people already turn their ship to only get hit by one max, unless they are bb players from Jingles videos completely unaware of aswd hacks.

hugh loss of damage .... old flood does 60% in 90 seconds (how long was CD of premium damage con ?), new flood does 20% in 40 seconds ... per flood. That means a single flood causes already 40% in 80 seconds, 45% in 90 seconds. That's barely a 25% damage loss for the chance of setting 2 floodings...just because you are unable to set the 2nd flooding (or follow up) doesn't mean, that the other 11player on your team can't do it. If anything this makes flooding even more deadly.

Besides most good players just cause a flooding, wait for repair and then start 2+ fires anyway.....

 

Alle 12/2/2019 alle 21:17, AdmiralJacksparo ha scritto:

the above mentioned is the problem, now the solution is to, increase the number of smokes for IJN, German and maybe USA DDs, to compensate the constantly being detectable through out the game and or also increase the initial movement/speed for destroyers.

I don't see how more smoke charges save you from 4+ ships radaring you for 5mins+ straight nor do I see how 40 smoke charges save you from a carrier just murdering you the moment your moke dissapates ... not including that the smoke doesn't move with you and completely blocks your vision.

Instead of you proposed "fix" you might as well just "ESC=> return to port" the moment there is a carrier or radar in your game. Sitting in the smoke waiting to get murdered or just quitting game and having your afk ship eventually getting murdered has the same value for your team and the game ... acutally you just quitting might even be better for your team because they don't have to deal with the smoke of a friendly DD covering the enemy team...

 

Alle 12/2/2019 alle 21:57, Asureas ha scritto:

They claim that the games are flooded with radar ships - hardly as much as they were a month or two ago

 

yes, since the patch lots of people play ships with good AA ... like Worcester, Des Moines, Minotaur ... oh wait, all of those have (or at least can have) radar ....."coincedently" the strongest and/or most effective AA ships have radar ...so how come that the amount of radar your games has been reduced with the cv rework ?

 

Alle 12/2/2019 alle 22:57, eliastion ha scritto:

It can't. It can be shot at by the ship's AA, yes, but it can't spot it.

Although that's off topic when it comes to this particular thread.

 

Actually wrong. Terrain saves planes from AA and ships from air spotting. This heavily works in favor of the carrier since he can begin his strike in safety behind the island and drop you split seconds after your AA opens up after crossing the island/mountain ... at near point blank range.

 

Alle 12/2/2019 alle 23:50, Spithas ha scritto:

2) Radar duration is increased but now there is a 6 second render delay

 

And now I am waiting for you to realize that the 6second delay does not impact the ship using radar. Ya, cruiser lost 2% on CE, that's what ? 200m ? 300m ? That sure makes up for the radar having up to 1km more range and up to 5 seconds longer duration...without the module that adds 20%. Not including that radar DD are not effected by the CE nerf. And it's not like radar ships sail towards you in a straight line in plain sight.

As someone else stated most player will have to turn their guns anyway to target the radar'ed DD, so they loose close to nothing with the 6seconds delay, on the other hand that Moskva can now shoot you at 12km instead of 11.7km and for 36seconds instead of 30. In fact Moskva radar now lasts 36seconds, remove the 6 second delay and your teammates have 30seconds to shoot....which is magically the same time they have pre-patch, only difference is you trade 6 seconds delay for 300m more range.

[Kuritaclan]

40 minutes ago, Catslave said:

The Juliet Yankee Bissotwo signal which decreases the duration of flooding by 20% will undoubtedly become more useful as a result.

 

Yes, because obviously reducing 1 80seconds flood by 20% makes alot less difference then reducing 2 40second floods ... math wizards....anyone ever told you that percentage changes have the same impact no matter the base value because their absolute value is based on the base value ? ... actually a 20% reduction to a 90seconds flooding is far more valuable then a 20% reduction to 2 40seconds. First of the old 90second flooding does alot more damage, second you shave 18seconds of the dot and speed debuff, while the 40seconds flooding you only shave 8 seconds off it. If anything this change devalues the flag and similar effects.

Ah. I wasn't the only one who had to laught at this kind of stupidity.

[eliastion]

3 hours ago, Catslave said:

The Juliet Yankee Bissotwo signal which decreases the duration of flooding by 20% will undoubtedly become more useful as a result.

 

Yes, because obviously reducing 1 80seconds flood by 20% makes alot less difference then reducing 2 40second floods ... math wizards....anyone ever told you that percentage changes have the same impact no matter the base value because their absolute value is based on the base value ? ... actually a 20% reduction to a 90seconds flooding is far more valuable then a 20% reduction to 2 40seconds. First of the old 90second flooding does alot more damage, second you shave 18seconds of the dot and speed debuff, while the 40seconds flooding you only shave 8 seconds off it. If anything this change devalues the flag and similar effects.

WG is wrong about many things but not about this. You use math and calculate the number of seconds/amount of damage a flag saves and you call quits - but you ignore the reality of the game.

 

Let me illustrate it this way. Imagine if flooding lasted 5 minutes (300 seconds), dealing 1% of ship's HP per second. A -20% duration signal would mean cutting it down to 4 minutes (240 seconds), saving you 60% of your ship's hp worth of damage, right? Problem is, it would be useless, because

 - a flood would kill you if you don't use DCP anyway, even Conqueror couldn't repair enough to live through this

 - even caught with DCP on cooldown, it would be back before the flooding is over, so as long as you were alive you would cut the flooding short long before the natural end

 

The actual situation is, of course, much less extreme, but the same generally applies: floodings usually don't end naturally. They are usually cut short either by DCP coming off cooldown or the ship sinking. The signal that reduces the duration doesn't really change that - floodings still last so long that you usually (not always but usually) either die or end up ending them with DCP. In both cases the signal has basically 0 effect. Making floodings less painful means that a player can afford to save DCP despite flooding AND if you are caught with DCP on cooldown, there is a chance that a flooding will run out before DCP becomes available (or it will be close enough to ending that you'd rather save DCP rather than use it to save these few remaining ticks of damage). In these situations the duration of the flooding actually starts to matter a lot and, because of that, the value and usefulness of the signal increases significantly.

 

3 hours ago, Catslave said:

Actually wrong. Terrain saves planes from AA and ships from air spotting. This heavily works in favor of the carrier since he can begin his strike in safety behind the island and drop you split seconds after your AA opens up after crossing the island/mountain ... at near point blank range. 

Well, thing is: this doesn't seem to be the case, actually. An island can hide your planes and being unspotted lets you avoid damage. But if something else does spot them, they actually seem to be taking damage from ships behind islands (solid ground basically working like smoke for purpose of AA).

This could be, of course, tested more conclusively in controlled environment of a training room, what I'm saying comes from the impressions of playing post-rework CVs in actual battles where it's easier to be mistaken about certain details.

[Kuritaclan]

1 hour ago, eliastion said:

WG is wrong about many things but not about this. You use math and calculate the number of seconds/amount of damage a flag saves and you call quits - but you ignore the reality of the game.

 

Let me illustrate it this way. Imagine if flooding lasted 5 minutes (300 seconds), dealing 1% of ship's HP per second. A -20% duration signal would mean cutting it down to 4 minutes (240 seconds), saving you 60% of your ship's hp worth of damage, right? Problem is, it would be useless, because

 - a flood would kill you if you don't use DCP anyway, even Conqueror couldn't repair enough to live through this

 - even caught with DCP on cooldown, it would be back before the flooding is over, so as long as you were alive you would cut the flooding short long before the natural end

 

The actual situation is, of course, much less extreme, but the same generally applies: floodings usually don't end naturally. They are usually cut short either by DCP coming off cooldown or the ship sinking. The signal that reduces the duration doesn't really change that - floodings still last so long that you usually (not always but usually) either die or end up ending them with DCP. In both cases the signal has basically 0 effect. Making floodings less painful means that a player can afford to save DCP despite flooding AND if you are caught with DCP on cooldown, there is a chance that a flooding will run out before DCP becomes available (or it will be close enough to ending that you'd rather save DCP rather than use it to save these few remaining ticks of damage). In these situations the duration of the flooding actually starts to matter a lot and, because of that, the value and usefulness of the signal increases significantly.

Well a 90 second flood doing 0.667% HP per second are if not controlled 60% of the HP pool. Cuting it short by 20% via flag won't save you since those 18sec are pretty much the valuable time. In other words, if you are under 48% HP Pool you will be dead no matter you have the flag or not if you can not DCP. It only helps you if you are in this small window between 60% and 48% HP, after the intial torpedo damage. So it is valuable at 12 times out of 100 generaly speaking. But even then you are so low I would argue , e.g. under 25%, that you will be (or should be) focused down to simple remove your guns from the battlefield. So in the end having 12% HP left after the flooding stops, you even wanna damage control this. And for the changed 40sec duration in the times the 8seconds cut short by the flag would matter, you are at 2% or 4% health instead of dead or something less this I say is a not a small but a tiny window of survival added. So yeah you would DCP as soon as you can. No the significance of the flag isn't increased. 

 

This flooding change is indirectly a buff for bow on campers like Yamato, Stalingrad and theirlikes and a nerf to DDs and kitting Cruisers for the most part. Broadly speaking. Since BB Kevin, who calls it a day and sails broadside on to the enemy team is the only one eating Torps at the bow and stern to get actually punished by the change with 2xflood, it is pandering to the masses who may or may not are overreacting to death by flooding, because they used their damage control in an inopportune moment.

[BrigadierShaw]

- Dd's will appear for 6 seconds on Mini map. Well, I will shoot them from mini map...easy. No positive rework here!

- I see the Salem has been left out in the cold for radar changes. It was shorter than its contemporaries already!

 *You need to do a rework for the reworked rework with this WG and then rework that... well, it keeps the wage salaries pumping* :)

 

[eliastion]

1 hour ago, Kuritaclan said:

And for the changed 40sec duration in the times the 8seconds cut short by the flag would matter, you are at 2% or 4% health instead of dead or something less this I say is a not a small but a tiny window of survival added. So yeah you would DCP as soon as you can. No the significance of the flag isn't increased.  

You're wrong, plain and simple. This can be easily shown through a simple analogy to the other DoT source we have in the game right now:

A single full flooding post-change deals, to BBs, 20% of their hp.

A single full fire deals, to BBs, 18% of their hp.

And do you know what smart BB players usually do with a single fire? They let it burn. Because these 18% of their hp is not worth using DCP unless the situation worsens. They can easily get that back with a heal. Are 20% that much more catastrophic than the 18% to force an insta-repair? Or, considering that BBs tend to fly the anti-fire flags and assuming they would fly anti-flooding ones as well now: Is 16% of hp lost due to a single uncontrolled flooding so much worse than the 14,4% (I'm not sure how the DoT durations are rounded) from an uncontrolled fire that the latter can be allowed to run its whole duration but the former requires instant DCP?

And, of course, there are also DCS Mod 2 and Basick of Survivability that, when taken, each provide further 15% reduction to fire and flooding duration as well, leaving both (with signal) at 10% hp lost to a single fool flooding, 9% hp to a single fire. So, best (worst?) case scenario the difference is between the DoT that can deal 9% and one that can deal 10% total hp worth of damage. Sure, flooding still does more damage and there are other reasons for it to be more pressing of a problem to solve, but I dare say that no-brainer insta-repair might no longer be the case. At least for people who actually take the note of the changes - we know that there are some people who still believe that they are saving credits by surviving a battle, after all.

[bondone]

Alle 13/2/2019 alle 03:01, Captain_Newman ha scritto:

 

WG has no idea what compensating even means. They said they wanted to remove the ability of a CV to permaspot the whole map, so they "fix" that by giving a CV control over only one squad at a time.

 

... and then they introduce multiple CV's per team, even in t10, and equip them with infinite planes that can almost teleport around the map, especially rocket planes, essentially removing stealth. Good job.

 

Want to help dd's, wg? Get rid of sky cancer the majority of players doesn't want anyway. Radar is manageable for any good dd player with a brain the way it is. You're even adjusting ranges so it's easier to remember.. this catering to the lowest common denominator is giving me a headache.

what would it be like if planes had decent controls ,as in WOWplanes  , and attacks could be full strike or half strike opped  by o key, fighters could dog fight the red team .forget rockets on ships , all can be in action at the same time , control could jump from bombers to torps or fighters or back to the CV using the j key .  So far CVs now suck , pre080 was at lest fun . at lest  the commander had control of the ship and what the planes did all at the same time . 

 

Alle 13/2/2019 alle 07:48, BrigadierShaw ha scritto:

- Dd's will appear for 6 seconds on Mini map. Well, I will shoot them from mini map...easy. No positive rework here!

- I see the Salem has been left out in the cold for radar changes. It was shorter than its contemporaries already!

 *You need to do a rework for the reworked rework with this WG and then rework that... well, it keeps the wage salaries pumping* :)

 

FUBAR  AND SNAFU at the same time

 

Alle 13/2/2019 alle 04:11, Catslave ha scritto:

Once again WG proves they know nothing about the game, as if the carrier garbage less then 2 weeks ago wasn't bad enough.

 

Radar

Radar range and action time gets increased across the board, so now DD have to stay even further and even longer away. Doesn't even remotely impact the main problem here: 5+ radar on each team. In fact with the increased action time it's now even easier to perma-radar an area. A tiny hint for you guys at wargaming: +20% (the radar module) action time on a 30seconds radar adds more time then +20% on a 25 second radar.

 

IX Black – increasing from 20 to 22 seconds

VIII Hsienyang – increasing from 15 to 20 seconds

IX Chung Mu – increasing from 17 to 22 seconds

X Yueyang – increasing from 20 to 25 seconds

 

 

Esp Black and Yueyang are considered frigging OP, they have smoke, excellent concealment, excellent manouverability and no citadel. Wargaming already proved their "expertise" by nerfing every single stat on the Yueyang without touching the radar, which is the root problem for the ship being OP. Now they even buff it....

 

Flooding

 

The new mechanics of Update 0.8.1 should make players less cautious about flooding, meaning that they won't reserve use of the Damage Control Party consumable for such situations.

 

Yes, because loosing propulsion (which gets even buffed) for 40 seconds as well as 10-20% of your HP from a single hit has absolutely no impact .. it's not like a loss of propulsion makes it harder to dodge anything or similar....

 

The Juliet Yankee Bissotwo signal which decreases the duration of flooding by 20% will undoubtedly become more useful as a result.

 

Yes, because obviously reducing 1 80seconds flood by 20% makes alot less difference then reducing 2 40second floods ... math wizards....anyone ever told you that percentage changes have the same impact no matter the base value because their absolute value is based on the base value ? ... actually a 20% reduction to a 90seconds flooding is far more valuable then a 20% reduction to 2 40seconds. First of the old 90second flooding does alot more damage, second you shave 18seconds of the dot and speed debuff, while the 40seconds flooding you only shave 8 seconds off it. If anything this change devalues the flag and similar effects.

 

The duration of flooding and the damage an individual instance can cause will decrease, making it less of a threat for new players, and allowing more experienced players to manage their ships' HP with greater efficiency.

 

yeah, because with the old flooding a BB would loose 60% of it's HP over 90 seconds, with the new mechanic that same BB will only loose 90% of their HP (20% per 40seconds per end) over 90 seconds assuming perma flood on both ends ... good job greatly increasing the damage potential of flooding ... and then trying to sell it as a nerf to flooding.

 

Skillful commanders will be able to benefit from this by effectively using one end of the ship (either the aft or bow) to mitigate the damage they take from torpedoes.

 

Of course, because all ships can just turn 180° within a second on the spot to make sure that aft catches all the torpedoes coming from the side. That whole thing has only any merit when the torpedoing player is a moron and torpedos a nose (or aft) in ship, the "skill" of the victim has close to no impact here .

 

So, has any of that actually been carefully considered ? Has anyone bothered wasting more then the time needed to empty a glass of vodka on actually thinking this through ? Has any of this ever been tested ?

Because just by reading this text for the first time i can pretty much predict this to be only second to the aircraft carrier rework in terms of gamebreaking garbage....

I now wonder if they even tried to play this game with real people before they dumped it on paying players . IF they paid me to say everything done is just great I would take the cash ,say dump it the  players ,and cash the check fast and look for a new job .   how many more months of this garbage can players take . 

[life2party]

"Cv Rework"  with every hot fix you tip the balance of the game and making it even worse.... this was not needed at all! Balancing this on a live server will cost you dearly, why? Revert the update please and test this game mehanics on a Test server like you should form the start. Game is unplayable for most of the lines in tech tree, specialy those one witch concealment is their thing(DD's). With this update dds will become a rare thing(not realistic specialy playing souch a big role in both WW). Heading this direction is killing the game, please stop WG! Please fire a guy who thought this was a "way to go". And yeah i will not provide anymore feedback, i did that for the past 4 years. All that balancing thrown out trough the window. 

[EpicPals]

I love these changes. Torps are so mega op and finally my crying on forum pays of! Tumbs up to radar tobad tho it dident reveal the Destroyer directly anymore tho but better than nothing. Can u please nerf their cloud cuse its op for me as BB thx!

[NothingButTheRain]

Alle 12/2/2019 alle 15:16, AngryDragon70 ha scritto:

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."

 

(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!)

I think epicenter is great fun! So speak for yourself, you don't represent more then your mouse and keyboard here on the internet 

 

It's actually quite funny and a bit disturbing seeing all these (ex-)DD mains complaining about the radar changes which they themselves whined for for so long now. Now getting radared means you won't get targetted by 6 enemy ships right away anymore and all I can see them do is even more complaining 

 

Radar was always much less of a problem, especially the shorter ranged USN CLs are easy to avoid (just move away from them and get de-radared in a few), it's the long range Russian radar that I find more nasty. Wooster used to be able to stealth radar. Now the difference between maximum conceilment and its radar is 800 meters, quite a substantial nerf.

 

Getting hit once is enough to loose all progress on my capping and Rusky railguns (especially the accurate railguns) are more than adequate for this purpose.

Alle 13/2/2019 alle 01:09, victorem ha scritto:

As it is i used to play DDs a lot. Now i find myself playing russian cruisers a lot, and i dont realy enjoy hunting DD as much as i did torping BBs, please consider. reconsider, and unbreak the game. 

That's quite funny actually, as I've changed in the exact opposite order! 

I went from Russian cruisers to playing DDs 

I basically played nothing but my Benson yesterday and finally managed to get that campaign mission for 10 plane kills. Took like 5 or 6 battles or so? Because it was hard to get into a carrier match and have the enemy carrier constantly attack me in favorable circumstances (for my DefAA to shoot the remaining 4 of them down lol).

What I don't like about this build is that it depends so much on an enemy carrier being in the game AND attacking me (as often a friendly AA cruiser would follow me towards the cap and I'd rather not piss those off for doing their jobs and go beyond that even).

 

Without DefAA it seems a lot harder and I'm not sure I wanna give up radar on the Black just yet. But Benson without accuracy upgrade and 4 guns instead of 5, it's quite a lot to give up in order to get Benson carrier-ready 

 

Alle 13/2/2019 alle 04:11, Catslave ha scritto:

The duration of flooding and the damage an individual instance can cause will decrease, making it less of a threat for new players, and allowing more experienced players to manage their ships' HP with greater efficiency.

 

yeah, because with the old flooding a BB would loose 60% of it's HP over 90 seconds, with the new mechanic that same BB will only loose 90% of their HP (20% per 40seconds per end) over 90 seconds assuming perma flood on both ends ... good job greatly increasing the damage potential of flooding ... and then trying to sell it as a nerf to flooding.

Just fyi. The main reason the old 90 second 20% reduction signal flags were considered useless is because the 90 seconds would actually outlive the cooldown time of the damage control consumable, thus making the 20% reduction completely moot.

If anything, the only ships I found this signal of any actual use is any ship with a superheal and that's about it. If anything, the one ship that will most negatively (but still not really that significantly) be affected by this change for me, will be my Conqueror.

[Atheist_Chaplain]

If you can do line of sight in the game physics then you can do line of sight for radar, radar is still a magic spell that can see through 5 K's of island.

[DocStrangeFruit]

So basically from what I have read the update boils down to two things.

 

1. Your to lazy or unskilled to rework radar/hydro properly so as normal your going for the half assed easy route instead of removing radar/hydro and then redoing it correctly i.e it cant see through land masses. So your answer Is to increase radar range? and buff how long it last, you guys really do not listen to the player base at all do you.

 

2. Your nerfing DDs yet again and pandering to the BBabies as they don't like getting water inside their ships.

 

Sorry but your programmers and developers are dumbing this game down to the point that you wont have a player base left soon. The CV rework is unbalanced and a total shambles, the directives and missions plus rewards are total garbage of late and you are money grabbing more and more with lack lustre premium crap.

[Raziel_Walker]

1 hour ago, NothingButTheRain said:

It's actually quite funny and a bit disturbing seeing all these (ex-)DD mains complaining about the radar changes which they themselves whined for for so long now. Now getting radared means you won't get targetted by 6 enemy ships right away anymore and all I can see them do is even more complaining 

Because instead of getting radared by a russian ship for 20 seconds I will get radared by the russian ship for 25 seconds and all other ships for 19 seconds with 6 seconds before that to start aiming turrets and getting in a blind shot. (Which thanks to minimap circles showing where you are aiming has a pretty decent chance of hitting your target.)

Because instead of getting radared by a US ship from 9 km away they now have an almost universal 10 km range.

 

Had they rounded down those radar ranges it would be fine.

[NothingButTheRain]

10 minutes ago, Raziel_Walker said:

Because instead of getting radared by a russian ship for 20 seconds I will get radared by the russian ship for 25 seconds and all other ships for 19 seconds with 6 seconds before that to start aiming turrets and getting in a blind shot. (Which thanks to minimap circles showing where you are aiming has a pretty decent chance of hitting your target.)

Because instead of getting radared by a US ship from 9 km away they now have an almost universal 10 km range.

 

Had they rounded down those radar ranges it would be fine.

But you won't get instanuked anymore. Isn't that what these certain DD-only players wanted in the first place?

[Oopsidaisi]

Its clear to me that WG has absolutly no "genius well thought masterplan" for this game.

One day, they wil say something is a much needed fix/buff/nerf, make a lot of changes, and then  lalalala go on to do something completely different a month later, buffing the ship the just nerfed and vice versa..

 

We dont have to look for stats and turn our brains inside out for the answer for these changes, because there simply isn't none.. Nada.

Yes, well you can surely think of a plausible answer for a radar nerf/buff, but a update later and you need to make up a new one to answer the same question. 

WG have no plan. They are not acting accordingly to "a fairness/money/master plan"

They are just stumbling along.. oopsidaisy.. Its all there...

 

Im no geius tho, so I could ofc. be missing the point completely.. 

[Kuritaclan]

8 hours ago, eliastion said:

You're wrong, plain and simple. This can be easily shown through a simple analogy to the other DoT source we have in the game right now:

A single full flooding post-change deals, to BBs, 20% of their hp.

A single full fire deals, to BBs, 18% of their hp.

And do you know what smart BB players usually do with a single fire? They let it burn. Because these 18% of their hp is not worth using DCP unless the situation worsens. They can easily get that back with a heal. Are 20% that much more catastrophic than the 18% to force an insta-repair? Or, considering that BBs tend to fly the anti-fire flags and assuming they would fly anti-flooding ones as well now: Is 16% of hp lost due to a single uncontrolled flooding so much worse than the 14,4% (I'm not sure how the DoT durations are rounded) from an uncontrolled fire that the latter can be allowed to run its whole duration but the former requires instant DCP?

And, of course, there are also DCS Mod 2 and Basick of Survivability that, when taken, each provide further 15% reduction to fire and flooding duration as well, leaving both (with signal) at 10% hp lost to a single fool flooding, 9% hp to a single fire. So, best (worst?) case scenario the difference is between the DoT that can deal 9% and one that can deal 10% total hp worth of damage. Sure, flooding still does more damage and there are other reasons for it to be more pressing of a problem to solve, but I dare say that no-brainer insta-repair might no longer be the case. At least for people who actually take the note of the changes - we know that there are some people who still believe that they are saving credits by surviving a battle, after all.

I agree, comparing the caused damage fire is after that deadlier. But that wasn't the point i argued. So whatever.

 

3 hours ago, Raziel_Walker said:

Had they rounded down those radar ranges it would be fine.

I think so too.

[Kehldon]

Im sorry but I really dislikes the current version of radar and spotting!

 

I wish they had a more realistic radar model, so the range is corresponding to the size of the target.

 

For example, if the base radar range is 15km.

BB:s and CVs are spotted at 100% of that range, CAs and CLs at 75% and DDs at 50%.

I can even imagine that ship characteristic could improve or worsen that range individually, so that some ships are harder to spot with radar then others, just like the normal spotting.

 

At last I still think radar (and hydro to some extent) being able to ignore line of site, is bad for game balance and totally unrealistic. I know that its not a realistic game, but still.  I heared they tried it but couldn't get it work properly.

And don't get me started on the absurd "Deep Water Radar". The guy who came up with the name should go back to school...  Low Resolution Radar would be better name if you must implement it.

 

Then we have this thing with spotting from friendlies. Im sorry but transferring radar data between ships, planes and other vehicles is pretty modern invention and Im pretty sure that it was not a thing in the 50s when most tier 8-10 are being in active duty.

So my suggestion is scrap radar and plane spotting beyond your horizon and just show them on the minimap.

[Jean_Bart]

19 hours ago, DB2212 said:

Changes are "necessary" because WG implemented radar. Radar fubared so much that they are reacting to the fubar by altering the fubar and thus increasing fubar.

Intelligent people would get rid of the fubar-causing problem, but changing many things to counter the fubar is fubar and a sensible thing. Apparently.

 

And then CV stuff happens.

 

It's almost like WG don't like their customers and want to make lots of them go away.

The entire game is going FUBAR soon !

[Lacomble1942]

On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 2:00 PM, 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

Campaigns for Tier 1 to 7?????

[surfer_gr]

well you want to stop people playing dds altogether i guess cause thats exactly what i did i only play russian dds so i dont care about been spotted cause the only think i do is shoot at anything that is moving ahahahah have fun destroying this game thats from someone with more than 23k battles and pls can you take black back and give me my steel that i spent on it is all yours LOL