Tanking isn't worth it

[Capra76]

9 hours ago, Kejoz said:

Well DD's do less damage on average but are the best in paying off their HP's. 

 

So logically, using that argument, if WG were to cut BB HP pools in half that would be a buff then?

[Kejoz]

4 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

Paying off your HP is a rather strange argument. Why should a Myoko have to do several thousand more damage than a Yorck or Zara to pull her weight?

The game is built around health points, both teams have a fixed hp pool, first team that takes all enemy points wins the game. Each player is given some points that he has to work with while taking as many enemy hp's as possible. This is the core of WoWs and its sister game WoT.

 

Player performance in shooters is usually evaluated by frag count but in WoWs you have to fire a lot more shells to take down your target so to easiest way of rating your performance is looking at the dmg dealt/taken ratio so in this case, if you are going to sink, be sure to cause damage equal or more to your own hp pool. By doing this you give your team a gain, even if you die.

 

4 hours ago, Capra76 said:

 

So logically, using that argument, if WG were to cut BB HP pools in half that would be a buff then?

 

Only if dps of every ship in the game would be cut in half. Damage sponge without hp would work only with some kind of imba armor.

[AnotherDuck]

25 minutes ago, Kejoz said:

Each player is given some points that he has to work with while taking as many enemy hp's as possible.

True, but your health pool is not related to the enemy's health pool. If you pick a ship with more health, the enemy doesn't suddenly also get more health. And it's completely disregarding that some ships may have more health because they have less offensive power. Or some other balance concern.

 

25 minutes ago, Kejoz said:

so to easiest way of rating your performance is looking at the dmg dealt/taken ratio so in this case, if you are going to sink, be sure to cause damage equal or more to your own hp pool.

In other words, screw team play, capping, spotting, or anything else other than raw damage. Better deal 30k damage to a BB than to sink any DD. This is, according to you, how you earn your worth. I mean, even if I sink two DDs in my BB, and nothing else, I don't pull my own weight, in your logic.

 

No, that's not how performance is evaluated. It's how you evaluate it if you don't know how to evaluate it. The easiest way is usually not the correct way. Raw damage is even worse than the current XP system, and that's as flawed as you can expect from WG.

[Taliesn]

3 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

Actually, that's false. Sure, you should probably not try to snipe DDs, but if they're within reasonable range, shoot them. Even if you only do overpens, that's still a lot of damage for a fragile DD. And if your own DDs are in a fight with that DD, you're helping them out just a little bit to survive. I mean, would you rather have one more DD on your team and one less on the enemy team, or 5k-10k more damage if you take the shot on a larger target?

 

 

Aw bless, irony has died indeed. It was a tongue in cheek comment.

[ForlornSailor]

27 minutes ago, Taliesn said:

Aw bless, irony has died indeed. It was a tongue in cheek comment.

 

Its the fault of all the stupid comments, that are meant true over the years in this forum. It has killed my senses for sarcasm, irony and fun completly aswell. I can never judge, if anyone is serious or not. Because he might aswell be...

 

3 hours ago, Kejoz said:

The game is built around health points, both teams have a fixed hp pool, first team that takes all enemy points wins the game. Each player is given some points that he has to work with while taking as many enemy hp's as possible. This is the core of WoWs and its sister game WoT.

 

Player performance in shooters is usually evaluated by frag count but in WoWs you have to fire a lot more shells to take down your target so to easiest way of rating your performance is looking at the dmg dealt/taken ratio so in this case, if you are going to sink, be sure to cause damage equal or more to your own hp pool. By doing this you give your team a gain, even if you die.

 

 

Oh a big brain... Only if dps of every ship in the game would be cut in half. Damage sponge without hp would work only with some kind of imba armor. 

 

yea. oof. I After reading your last post I have nothing to say to you. Other then: listen to the people discussing with you. Instead of insulting them. You might learn something.

[Dark_Knight08]

13 hours ago, Donar79 said:

In fact you missed the point "completely". @ForlornSailor showed you that BBs still doing well. If you can't manage to get this results and get along with "HE spammers" and "OP torp boats" then you should consider you are doing it wrong. It's called self reflection.

Tanking is one of your main tasks as a ship with the most armor and HP. There is always time for pushing, blocking, preserving and kiting. But it needs some skill and experience to know when it is the right time.

its easy to farm damage staying in the back, which is what happens the most..so those damage numbers does not matter...this post is just about tanking and if its worth it...and in my opinion it is not...and luckily we dont have to mean and think the same...you look from a numbers point of view i look at it from the gameplay i see..

[Dark_Knight08]

14 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

If a BB could just push in at the beginning of the game, tank half the enemy team and not die, what would be the point?

Then you get 10 BBs hammering it out in the caps or what?

 

Also, BBs simply are the best tanks in the game. Sure, experienced cruiser players can also tank a few million potential by good dodging (or stupid BBs pounding a Moskva/Stalingrad without achieving anything), but BBs still need to take their share of it. They have the most HP, they always have a heal, they have the best armor protection.

i agree that they should...i saw a video on youtube by jingles...he said as example DDs should go first, then BBs, then cruisers. His reason was that DDs can go undetected and get close, BBs can use that healtpool and help the team, and cruisers have better dispersion and can hit more consistently from the back. But for what i see in most games BBs stay in the back and farm damage from there, cause going forward to help and support a cap and use the guns mid range where they are most powerful is a fast death these days...only point is still that tanking is not very successful in the game as it is being played at this time...agree or not does not matter, we all look at it from different point of views..

[Dark_Knight08]

21 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

No, no, and no, respectively. I mentioned some examples about where tanking in a BB is far more feasible than in any other ship (save perhaps super cruisers and Moskva, but those are arguably played somewhat like BBs). Sure, singular examples don't really prove a point, but the point there is that there are tactics where tanking is valuable and can change the match.

 

The problem is that the average BB player (speaking of high tier, in my experience) is more cowardly than any other player in the game (so they have very little practice in pushing), and less skilled (so they tend to do mistakes when they do). Therefore they don't understand how to push effectively without overdoing it. That's a fine balance, especially for ships that are sluggish in movement. The timing is also hard, since you need to know when your team is ready to assist, and when the enemy team shows weakness. Sometimes you just need to go for it, and sometimes you need to wait half the match. Quite often, you need to create the openings yourself.

 

In short, tanking properly in a BB requires skill, which a lot of BB players lack. Therefore they think it's not something you can do.

i agree that tanking in some situations is worth it, just not often as the game is being played at this time and specially in high tier battles. You would think by tier 10 they are not cowardly or less skilled, but perhaps more careful than in lower tier battles. And i do think is cause of some of the reasons i put in. But often i see and find that even when you outnumber the opponent team close to a cap, that people are not willing to support a push, they rather stay behind and duck behind islands or cluster up somewhere...i dont know if there is a big difference on which server people play...But i do think the gameplay for tanking and using a kurfurst as an example for what its really good at, happens rarely... 

[Kejoz]

 

41 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

yea. oof. I After reading your last post I have nothing to say to you. Other then: listen to the people discussing with you. Instead of insulting them. You might learn something.

Yeah oof, i can argue politely without sarcastic and patronizing comments that oversimplify or satirize my statements. I won't learn anything from that but i've fixed my comment so mr. Capra can be the sole abuser.

3 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

In other words, screw team play, capping, spotting, or anything else other than raw damage. Better deal 30k damage to a BB than to sink any DD. This is, according to you, how you earn your worth. I mean, even if I sink two DDs in my BB, and nothing else, I don't pull my own weight, in your logic.

 

No, that's not how performance is evaluated. It's how you evaluate it if you don't know how to evaluate it. The easiest way is usually not the correct way. Raw damage is even worse than the current XP system, and that's as flawed as you can expect from WG.

In other words no, you are oversimplifying. Battleships in WoWs spot while being fired upon, they can cap from time to time but due to their poor concealment they might fail to secure caps. Their presence might allow more nimble or concealed teammates to cap. I will repeat myself, battleships are damage sponges, they are not OP compared to destroyers, they have a different role in game balance that presents itself in server wide statistics.

 

You've stated that:

On 4/29/2020 at 10:25 PM, AnotherDuck said:

This is pretty much BS. Sure, torpedoes are potentially the strongest weapons, but in practice DDs do less damage than other ships. HE spam is also less of an issue than AP spam from BBs. Even if you angle.

Yes, battleships can alfa-strike some targets but take more damage that they can inflict, destroyers on the other hand deal more damage that they can take and that is due to their torpedoes. This is WoWs gameplay balance, making torpedoes faster and more stealthy will disrupt battleship ability to soak damage, making battleships more resilient to fire or more accurate will disable the balance, getting rid off radar will give destroyers too much  control over the battlefield.

[AnotherDuck]

4 hours ago, Taliesn said:

Aw bless, irony has died indeed. It was a tongue in cheek comment.

Yeah, sorry, hard to tell, since a lot of players actually think that.

 

3 hours ago, Dark_Knight08 said:

You would think by tier 10 they are not cowardly or less skilled,

You'd think that, wouldn't you?

 

3 hours ago, Kejoz said:

In other words no, you are oversimplifying.

No, I'm not the one oversimplifying. The oversimplification is the performance rating you described. I just stated how it works. Which isn't.

 

3 hours ago, Kejoz said:

Yes, battleships can alfa-strike some targets but take more damage that they can inflict, destroyers on the other hand deal more damage that they can take and that is due to their torpedoes.

That's what I was saying. The damage you deal isn't related to the damage you can take, in raw numbers. In some cases not even in percentage damage, since a zero-damage DD can do more for the team than a 200% damage cruiser.

 

3 hours ago, Kejoz said:

getting rid off radar will give destroyers too much  control over the battlefield.

No. That's been proven many times, since the battlefield doesn't spontaneously evolve all destroyer to overlords the moment you don't have radar ships, even at higher tiers where there are radars. They also have poor effect on the players you actually need help against.

 

Radar was an attempt to combat the smoke meta that was heavy when radar was introduced. However, it only made it worse, since it allowed easier visibility through your own smoke. What actually helped with that smoke meta was the change in smoke mechanics to allow for reduced gun bloom rather than a strict assured detection range (which normally is 2 km).

 

In short, the radar mechanic is an absolute failure from WG to do something good for the game, much like the CV rework and from the looks of it subs.

[Kejoz]

5 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

That's what I was saying. The damage you deal isn't related to the damage you can take, in raw numbers. In some cases not even in percentage damage, since a zero-damage DD can do more for the team than a 200% damage cruiser.

The problem is that you talk about single cases while i focus only on global data provided by stat measuring website. A man and his dog statistically have three legs on average, this is how it works 

5 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

Radar was an attempt to combat the smoke meta that was heavy when radar was introduced. However, it only made it worse, since it allowed easier visibility through your own smoke. What actually helped with that smoke meta was the change in smoke mechanics to allow for reduced gun bloom rather than a strict assured detection range (which normally is 2 km).

 

In short, the radar mechanic is an absolute failure from WG to do something good for the game, much like the CV rework and from the looks of it subs.

Wargaming has detailed server statistics that we have no access to. I know that people tend to distrust them, so do I in many regards, but i seriously doubt that they are incompetent in data analysis. Stealth was probably too overpowered, nerfing DD concealment would render them obsolete, buffing cruiser concealment could make some too good, so they added a gimmick that is limited in few ways. 

 

Take into account that every player wants to have fun, the biggest fun killer is frustration. Frustration comes from lack of ability to counterplay certian mechanics or lack of skill to do so. In a nutshell: battleships are frustrated that destroyers spam them from smoke/spam torps while being invisible, destroyers are frustrated that cruisers have radar, cruisers are frustrated that battleships can blap them, carriers are equally frustrating for everyone while being the most relaxing class to play. When a battleship is harassed by destroyers, friendly cruiser should be able to help him, without long range sonar or radar he would be unable to do so. Yolorushing smoke usually ends on the bottom of the sea.

[Danucu_Tigger]

5 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

No. That's been proven many times, since the battlefield doesn't spontaneously evolve all destroyer to overlords the moment you don't have radar ships, even at higher tiers where there are radars. They also have poor effect on the players you actually need help against.

Well, it would do now, when many DDs have <6km detection, 10-16 torpedo salvos and reload boosters, 15+km torpedo range or 65+knots torpedo speed. Or a combination of these. Try chasing a DD while spotted in a ship without radar or hydro. Yeah, that's fun...

Radar ships provide area denial for the team. For better or worse, this is what the game evolved into.

 

On topic, bowtanking is getting more and more difficult with ships capable of overmatching bow armor and HE spammers. I had a game yesterday in my Montana in which I tanked 4.6mil damage, dodging and actively maneuvering only to see after being killed that the GK that had started pushing with me had turn tail and hid behind an island on the 1 line after taking 14k damage...

Tanking 1-2 or 3 ships is fine, but tanking 4 or more is quickly overwhelming. One starts losing situational awareness (i.e. neglects to look at the map) and desperately tries to find the best target (sometimes wasting a couple of salvos blindfiring in a smoke cuz' maybe he can dev-strike that pesky cruiser, the only ship that seems to be broadside). Reversing is almost useless and, while maneuvering may throw up the aim of a battleship and dodge some torps, it is almost useless against fast firing ships like Kitakaze&co, Smolensk or Minotaur. 

[AnotherDuck]

3 hours ago, Kejoz said:

The problem is that you talk about single cases while i focus only on global data provided by stat measuring website. A man and his dog statistically have three legs on average, this is how it works

And an average man has less than two legs on average. I know how statistics work, and I don't focus on only a single case. I used an example to prove that you're wrong. But that still doesn't mean there's a direct correlation between the damage you deal and the damage you take. If you for instance have two CAs with the same role but different stats, they should deal the same damage on average, regardless of whether they have the same amount of health themselves.

 

3 hours ago, Kejoz said:

Wargaming has detailed server statistics that we have no access to. I know that people tend to distrust them, so do I in many regards, but i seriously doubt that they are incompetent in data analysis. Stealth was probably too overpowered, nerfing DD concealment would render them obsolete, buffing cruiser concealment could make some too good, so they added a gimmick that is limited in few ways. 

But DD stealth wasn't the main reason radar was added. It was smoke. And if you seriously believe WG doesn't make major mistakes on a frequent bases, I'm not sure I can take you seriously.

 

3 hours ago, Kejoz said:

Frustration comes from lack of ability to counterplay certian mechanics or lack of skill to do so.

My main frustration with radar comes with how it made the game less fun to play as a cruiser. As a DD player, I'm fine with it, but without radar I'd have played cruisers far more. Radar is pretty much what enables the island and smoke HE spam. That's why the previous smoke meta got worse with radar. It also gives an additional level of safety for BBs, on top of their health, on top of their armour, on top of their heals. Because that's what they really needed. Even more padding.

 

2 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Well, it would do now, when many DDs have <6km detection, 10-16 torpedo salvos and reload boosters, 15+km torpedo range or 65+knots torpedo speed. Or a combination of these.

So? Pretty much all cruisers and some battleships have hydro, which negates pretty much all of that. Most DDs don't even have most of those in the first place, and they come with other drawbacks you neglected to mention.

 

2 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Try chasing a DD while spotted in a ship without radar or hydro. Yeah, that's fun...

Why remove hydro? Why even bring that up? Do you know how arguments work? Pretty much all cruisers have hydro.

 

But ignoring that superfluous part of your argument, yes, it was fun, back without the radar meta. That's why I want it back.

 

2 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Radar ships provide area denial for the team. For worse, this is what the game evolved into.

You added two extra words there. I removed them for you. You can thank me later.

 

[Thracen]

This is a very silly topic. 

 

You can't tank.

 

You can't tank all the new overmatching BBs.

 

You can't tank smolensks and harus.

 

You can't tank CVs.

 

You can't tank Henrys.

 

You can't tank conqueror.

 

So please tell me what can you actually tank these days? 

[Danucu_Tigger]

4 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

My main frustration with radar comes with how it made the game less fun to play as a cruiser. As a DD player, I'm fine with it, but without radar I'd have played cruisers far more. Radar is pretty much what enables the island and smoke HE spam. That's why the previous smoke meta got worse with radar. It also gives an additional level of safety for BBs, on top of their health, on top of their armour, on top of their heals. Because that's what they really needed. Even more padding.

Sorry, but I don't understand... is your favorite cruiser play style farming from smoke? Other than that, cruisers shouldn't be bothered by radar at all, as they seldom get within enemy radar range unspotted. Actually without Radar HE spamming would be way worse - just see how frustrating is to fight a couple of Minotaurs or Smolensks that smoke each other up outside radar range. Not just for BBs, but also for DDs and Crusiers.

 

Radar is a deterrent for DDs to push aggressively, although lately I've been seeing more and more DDs managing to slip behind the enemy team because cruisers are pinned down behind islands.

 

4 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

Why remove hydro? Why even bring that up? Do you know how arguments work? Pretty much all cruisers have hydro.

 

But ignoring that superfluous part of your argument, yes, it was fun, back without the radar meta. That's why I want it back. 

I didn't advocate for the removal of Hydro. Pretty much all tier 5+ cruisers  have it, but you forget that Hydro is an option. I actually run DefAA consumable (although it's been nerfed into oblivion) on my second line cruisers for a bit more AA firepower that comes handy against CVs when sailing with BBs in the back. And obviously Hydro is not always on. Being uptiered in a tier6-7 Cruiser with Hydro on cool-down and chasing a stealthy DD that can on-shot you with a single torpedo or, God-forbid, an Akizuki, that may even outgun you, is not my idea of fun.

 

As radars are only  available from tier 7 ships up, I guess every 'it-was-way-better-before-radar' nostalgic can go play in a relatively secure no-radar meta at tier 5, right? Fast reloading torps, dum.. I mean, inexperienced BB players in slow ships, every DD captain's wet dream.

 

OFFTOPIC

Actually I would like to see the radar mechanic nerfed to Line of Sight only and adding Fire&forget antiradiation missiles as consumables for some ships that home on active radars.

Hydro should have an extended range (at least 10km) but with different detection levels based on distance and speed of the enemy ships - far away / low speed  ships  shouldn't be identified - just 'something over there', closer/higher speed ships should have a delay before a firing solution and finally very fast /close ships should be detected immediately, like in the current meta.

 

 

[ColonelPete]

8 hours ago, Thracen said:

This is a very silly topic. 

 

You can't tank.

 

You can't tank all the new overmatching BBs.

 

You can't tank smolensks and harus.

 

You can't tank CVs.

 

You can't tank Henrys.

 

You can't tank conqueror.

 

So please tell me what can you actually tank these days? 

I can tank them all.

[AnotherDuck]

3 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Sorry, but I don't understand... is your favorite cruiser play style farming from smoke? Other than that, cruisers shouldn't be bothered by radar at all, as they seldom get within enemy radar range unspotted. Actually without Radar HE spamming would be way worse - just see how frustrating is to fight a couple of Minotaurs or Smolensks that smoke each other up outside radar range. Not just for BBs, but also for DDs and Crusiers.

The issue isn't radar itself. It's the effect it has on the meta. It's made DDs more rare, and BBs more common. Both of those are bad for cruisers. It's also made the meta more stale, and you either hide somewhere and shoot from cover/concealment, or you spam HE from long range where you can more easily dodge.

 

Radar is what enables those Smolenks to do what they do, since it removes one of their main threats. Sitting still in smoke is dangerous, but if all DDs are zoned out by radars, there's far less danger, and they can just sit tere and farm.

 

3 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Radar is a deterrent for DDs to push aggressively, although lately I've been seeing more and more DDs managing to slip behind the enemy team because cruisers are pinned down behind islands.

And that's a bad deterrent, because the danger of aggressive pushes like that is one thing that keeps the game dynamic. It's a direct encouragement for stale gameplay.

 

3 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

I didn't advocate for the removal of Hydro.

You said: "Try chasing a DD while spotted in a ship without radar or hydro." (Emphasis mine.) Why mention that at all? It's like someone saying BBs don't need a heal, and you say, "Try surviving in a BB without heal or damecon." It's a nonsensical argument.

 

3 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

As radars are only  available from tier 7 ships up, I guess every 'it-was-way-better-before-radar' nostalgic can go play in a relatively secure no-radar meta at tier 5, right? Fast reloading torps, dum.. I mean, inexperienced BB players in slow ships, every DD captain's wet dream.

Nah, I prefer the marginally less potato high tier players when I play DDs. But as I said, radar isn't a problem for me in a DD, and my DD stats have gone up since radar was introduced, because so many other DD players fail. Cruiser play is what's gone bad since then. "Just go sealclub," isn't really an argument. Assuming everyone who don't like radar is just a DD player who wants a godmode is a strawman argument.

 

3 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Actually I would like to see the radar mechanic nerfed to Line of Sight only and adding Fire&forget antiradiation missiles as consumables for some ships that home on active radars.

Hydro should have an extended range (at least 10km) but with different detection levels based on distance and speed of the enemy ships - far away / low speed  ships  shouldn't be identified - just 'something over there', closer/higher speed ships should have a delay before a firing solution and finally very fast /close ships should be detected immediately, like in the current meta.

Not sure about that hydro difference, but LOS radar is something I've argued for previously. And that radar ships should be automatically spotted if any enemy ship is detected by radar. Although if you want to be realistic, counter-radar spotting should have longer range than radar spotting.

[General_Regret]

On 4/29/2020 at 10:52 PM, ForlornSailor said:

Also, BBs have the highest survivabilty and the highest K/D ratio, if we once again leave aside the CVs.

 

Source: last weeks stats.

 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20200425/eu_week/average_class.html

Hmm... I wonder what those statistics would look like without cv's harassing dd and cruisers right from the start of the battle...

[ForlornSailor]

3 hours ago, General_Regret said:

Hmm... I wonder what those statistics would look like without cv's harassing dd and cruisers right from the start of the battle...

 

Thats easy. Stats from before the CV rework:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/pastrecords/20181215/eu_week/average_class.html

 

lets make it screenshots to compare easier:

 

 

 

[Danucu_Tigger]

 

 

15 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

The issue isn't radar itself. It's the effect it has on the meta. It's made DDs more rare, and BBs more common. Both of those are bad for cruisers. It's also made the meta more stale, and you either hide somewhere and shoot from cover/concealment, or you spam HE from long range where you can more easily dodge.

Do you have data to back your theory? Over the last 2 patches a new DD line was introduced, along with quite a number of premium DDs as well (Marceau, Hayate, Smaland) so people were quite interested in playing/grinding them. Looking further back there are the Regia Marina and RN heavy cruiser lines that encouraged players to grind cruisers.

 

By the way, in the last patch the number of both BBs and DDs was limited, so the ship composition is somewhat balanced.

From 9.3.0 Matchmaking notes: The number of destroyers and battleships in the team will not exceed 4 and 5 ships of each type, respectively. (Emphasis mine)

 

Blaming the stale state of the game exclusively on the Radar is a stretch: equally important are  the proliferation of 457mm armed BBs, the 'not so great' long range soviet BB accuracy,  DDs with long range torpedoes, hard to hit stupidly fast almost-cruiser-DD gunboats and obviously CVs that force ships to stay together for mutual AA cover. (but I guess your theory blames radar for those too, right?)

 

You can complain all you want about Radar being the 'Original Sin', but the truth is that WoW as we know it now has been built around this mechanic. Changing or discarding it would force a cascade of other changes to Spotting ranges, Shooting ranges, Torpedo ranges and God knows what else that would unbalance the game forever.

 

Radar also elevated the role of some cruisers from mere HE spammers to some of the most important ships on the team. Want to see what cruiser gameplay would be without radar? Check Colbert, Smolensk or the Japanese cruisers . Not that players would rush to play cruisers - torpedoes are a lot more dangerous for cruisers than for BBs and without radar to force them to keep distance, DDs would permaspot you continuously.

 

As a cruiser captain I'd rather face 2-3 BBs I can see and angle against than 2-3 DDs I can't see, which launch "walls of skill" every 90sec from different directions...

 

By the way, would you rather have on your team a Cleveland or Des Moines with spotter plane, firing at maximum range, instead of surveillance radar? Cuz' I've seen quite a few lately...

17 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

Not sure about that hydro difference, but LOS radar is something I've argued for previously. And that radar ships should be automatically spotted if any enemy ship is detected by radar. Although if you want to be realistic, counter-radar spotting should have longer range than radar spotting.

Yeah, I know, you're itching for the Radar mechanic to be gone or at least nerfed (so you can play cruisers, right?), but without it the game balance is off. My Hydro proposal is intended to pick up some of the slack at longer ranges, if Radar is to be nerfed to LOS only.  Should also give a little more options for the developers when it comes to future lines, as they seem to be running out of gimmicks for new ships.

 

Finally, one might argue that non-stale games more often than not tend to evolve into one-sided ROFLstomps which aren't that rewarding.

 

[Thracen]

20 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

I can tank them all.

Care to share such wisdom with us bleps? 

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, Thracen said:

Care to share such wisdom with us bleps? 

What you want to know?

[AnotherDuck]

18 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Do you have data to back your theory? Over the last 2 patches a new DD line was introduced, along with quite a number of premium DDs as well (Marceau, Hayate, Smaland) so people were quite interested in playing/grinding them. Looking further back there are the Regia Marina and RN heavy cruiser lines that encouraged players to grind cruisers.

I've looked at data for that, but I don't have a link to it. DDs took a dive when radar was introduced, BBs were on the increase, and neither has gotten back to where it was before. For long-term effects, you can't look at the recent patches, because most new changes will have drastic changes. Most of those changes won't last. The biggest one that did was the German BB giveout quests and what not, which flooded the game with BBs. Since then the number of BBs have been much higher than previously.

 

18 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

By the way, in the last patch the number of both BBs and DDs was limited, so the ship composition is somewhat balanced.

From 9.3.0 Matchmaking notes: The number of destroyers and battleships in the team will not exceed 4 and 5 ships of each type, respectively. (Emphasis mine)

And that's a stupid change. It would be better if the numbers were 5 and 4 respectively. But WG likes their battleboats for their BBabies that work for them.

 

18 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Blaming the stale state of the game exclusively on the Radar is a stretch: equally important are  the proliferation of 457mm armed BBs, the 'not so great' long range soviet BB accuracy,  DDs with long range torpedoes, hard to hit stupidly fast almost-cruiser-DD gunboats and obviously CVs that force ships to stay together for mutual AA cover. (but I guess your theory blames radar for those too, right?)

No. Don't pretend you know what my arguments are if you're just guessing that wildly. I've not said radar's exclusively the reason, so don't even try that argument. I've also blamed CVs a lot, because they're worse than radar.

 

Soviet BBs are far more recent, and their introduction didn't really affect much at all. But yeah, they don't exactly help, and they're bad for the game. DDs with long range torpedoes have always been a thing since the dawn of the game, and cruiser-like gunboats have been a thing since Khaba, also a long time ago.

 

18 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

You can complain all you want about Radar being the 'Original Sin', but the truth is that WoW as we know it now has been built around this mechanic. Changing or discarding it would force a cascade of other changes to Spotting ranges, Shooting ranges, Torpedo ranges and God knows what else that would unbalance the game forever.

You're saying that as if it's a bad thing, and implying that the game is currently in a good state of balance. I'm just going to disagree with that.

 

18 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Radar also elevated the role of some cruisers from mere HE spammers to some of the most important ships on the team.

So important, in fact, that a lot of people demand they be in a separate class for matchmaking. Because cruisers without radar just aren't as good, only for that fact. I think that tells you a lot more about what people think about how balanced radar is than any argument they intend to present.

 

18 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Want to see what cruiser gameplay would be without radar? Check Colbert, Smolensk or the Japanese cruisers . Not that players would rush to play cruisers - torpedoes are a lot more dangerous for cruisers than for BBs and without radar to force them to keep distance, DDs would permaspot you continuously.

A lot more Smolenks would be killed by torpedoes while they hide in smoke without radar forcing DDs away. Ships hiding behind islands are harder to get to with radar cutting off lines of attack. Long range fire spammers aren't affected either way.

 

How are torpedoes more dangerous to more agile ships with hydro than for slow, large ships without hydro (or huge bricks with hydro)? It's a lot easier to dodge torps with a cruiser than with a BB.

 

18 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

As a cruiser captain I'd rather face 2-3 BBs I can see and angle against than 2-3 DDs I can't see, which launch "walls of skill" every 90sec from different directions...

Not all cruisers can angle, and with the high range BBs have, you're often in a crossfire the moment you're not at the back and not behind an island. And considering how much more effective AP is compared to torpedoes, what you're saying is that you rather get more damage from something you know than probably not get damage from something you can't see.

 

Besides, if you're against 2-3 DDs, you also have 2-3 DDs to spot for you. Well, if there's no radar, because otherwise you won't get spotting help from them nearly as much. BBs on your side don't really help much. They can attract some incoming shells, but on the whole you're a more attractive target.

 

I'd rather face off against 4 DDs than 2 BBs in a cruiser. Maybe even without allies to help me out.

 

18 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

without it the game balance is off.

Not really, no. You can still deal with DDs, even with the tools available sans radar. I mean, I could just say it like what people tell DD players about radar: Git gud. Radar is a crutch for the skill people lack. It's not the game balance that's off; it's the skill balance. Currently DD players are required to have higher skill than other types.

 

18 hours ago, Danucu_Tigger said:

Finally, one might argue that non-stale games more often than not tend to evolve into one-sided ROFLstomps which aren't that rewarding.

Stale games tend to be more like nothing happens for half the game, then ROFLstomp once one side gets bored. That's not better.

[pissBoiler]

On 4/29/2020 at 10:08 AM, Azalgor said:

LoL. Today BB just get set on fire on cooldowns and burn to death, while those suposedly vulnerable targetrs get blapped by focus fire. Armor is long meaningless due to changes in mechanics.

  

 

 

edit

[Thracen]

21 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

What you want to know?

How to tank those ships I listed. Short of russian BBs I can't imagine anything have much of a chance.