Random Battles & Radar

[SalvoNero]

Hi all, 
the question of radars begins to get serious !!!
As soon as a battle was over with my Yogumo destroyer, and during the battle, it was well understood that the disgrace was for everyone.
Radar Situation? 5 enemies against 3 Allies.
Now, good or not good, lucky or not, I don't think it can be a sustainable thing for the balance of the game.
Large areas of the map, in this case much, are always in the sunlight due to the radar.
I think it is appropriate to include, during the loading of the battle, a limit on the number of ships that use this Consumable so as not to balance the fight.
You could limit the number of existing zones in the loading battle 1, 2, or max 3.
Hopefully they understand and remedy, it's not a criticism of the ships in the game but an observation of the organizational method of the match.
In the end, it would also be appropriate to limit the difference of T, not more than 2, but to limit it to 1. Even in that case, everything would be much more balanced.
Good Battles
SalvoNero
Commander of the 132DivisionAriete

[Tyrendian89]

ah... this again... yes a radar heavy match is annoying for DDs (although your Yugumo at least has the torp range to still be relevant...), but WG have said that the number of radars on each team does not significantly impact chances of winning. Sounds questionable to me as well, but a) they have the data and b) if they say that then they're not going to change it.

As for +-1 matchmaking, no thanks, boring.

[RenamedUser_92906789]

Talking that MM is bad is a taboo on this forum.

Every time I brought up that +-2 tier was not fair there are plenty of purple players saying "its fine", but even Flamu bitches about it.

 

Many have said multiple times that WG should implement radar ratio in the MM, but till this day we heard nothing from them.

[RenamedUser_92906789]

2 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

As for +-1 matchmaking, no thanks, boring.

 

See I told you so :P

[SalvoNero]

Being smart means knowing how to change, but I thank you for your confidence and clarification

[lup3s]

1 hour ago, Tyrendian89 said:

WG have said that the number of radars on each team does not significantly impact chances of winning. Sounds questionable to me as well, but a) they have the data and b) if they say that then they're not going to change it.

 

I think the biggest influence (regarding Radar) on victory / defeat is the distribution of Radar ships between both teams.

Of course it also depends on the players playing them.

[SalvoNero]

5 radars are too much...

[159Hunter]

3 minutes ago, SalvoNero said:

5 radars are too much...

Same as 5 BB and 5 DD depending on what class you're playing in that game.

I do agree that they should try to balance the amount between the teams ( and remove them from that BB ... )

[MacFergus]

Makes me laugh when they throw an extra DD on a team with Jap CAs and the enemy team gets the Fijis and Belfast + and extra CA just to rub it in , This is a MM issue not a radar issue pure and simple.

[SalvoNero]

3 Missouri 1 Mosckva 1 Donskoi who use radars in any map make useless positioning of all ships. They force all the ships to not make any CAP and throw the boat at 15km from them. Clearly they are hidden behind in the rocks lol

[AnotherDuck]

Radar makes for campier gameplay. They protect battleships sitting still and bowtanking, and their increase makes cruiser population go down, which just makes it even worse for them.

 

As for +/-1 tier matchmaking, I don't think the +/-2 aspect is the problem. The problem is the uneven distribution. Some tiers have mostly top tier matches, and some tiers have mostly bottom tier matches.

[RenamedUser_92906789]

25 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

I don't think the +/-2 aspect is the problem.

 

It never is a problem if you are top tier (or T10) 

[lameoll]

i dont feel radars are a problem. As long as both teams have an equal ammount of radar ships.

but when they will ballance that Noone knows. 

[SEN_SEN_Channel_Portugue]

something should be implemented, I think, like on WT - stock ships - especially stock ships with under-training skippers - should have an short discount on MM (at least, until they get 1-2 upgrades) and get only +- 1 MM for a time.

Taking an stock tier VIII with untrained skipper in a Tier X game where, to make things worse, you are the only one guy at tier VIII and all the team its IX and X its really an unfair thing...

Just my 2 cents...

(War Thunder have this implemented by some time, and helps a lot the grind)....

[EsaTuunanen]

4 hours ago, nambr9 said:

Every time I brought up that +-2 tier was not fair there are plenty of purple players saying "its fine", but even Flamu bitches about it.

It really depends on ship and how upgraded it is/skill level of skipper.

Some ships "fail to give damn" about facing higher tiers, some can do still OK good ... while in some it would be completely just trying to avoid getting stomped on.

 

And those higher tier ship is still quite worthless if played by bad player.

Meet quite a lots of them in own team when my Scharnhorst is put to face higher tiers.

 

 

3 hours ago, MacFergus said:

Makes me laugh when they throw an extra DD on a team with Jap CAs and the enemy team gets the Fijis and Belfast + and extra CA just to rub it in , This is a MM issue not a radar issue pure and simple.

Had one match in Scharnhorst in which MM put all three Belfasts to enemy team.

Fortunately there was only one DD per team so not much effect in that aspect but still...

Pushed ~8km through Fault Line's C cap with two of those Belfasts smoke camping on other side of it.

Counting in heal likely lost nearly 40k hp to them before both were down.

Some Colorado with IFHE vulnerable 25mm side and deck plating, no speed to get close (or torps) wouldn't have had the slightest hope of not getting melted down.

[dCK_Ad_Hominem]

3 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Same as 5 BB and 5 DD depending on what class you're playing in that game.

I do agree that they should try to balance the amount between the teams ( and remove them from that BB ... )

5dds hurt every game since it becomes an in team competition between them. I would long since favor a 3 dd hard cap, but some cruiserc*nts think that this would hurt their class and thus argue against it. 

 

With 5dds carriers will immediately strike one since the allied cv can't protect all. Fun and engaging: 1

 

Bbs camp harder due to massive torp risk. Fun and engaging: 2

 

A lot of dds will actually become brave Sir Robins and not contest caps. Fun and engaging: 3.

 

Yes, cruisers prey on dds rather easily, but at least in high tiers they are far more capable than having to rely on a large dd count for xp.

[Prospect_b]

17 minutes ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

I would long since favor a 3 dd hard cap, but some cruiserc*nts think that this would hurt their class and thus argue against it. 

Good one...

 

What cruiser players want to limit is the amount of bb players in every game. Seeing 5 dds in a game is in the end quite rare, seeing 5 bbs is the norm.

 

I started playing DD instead of (or better: as well as) cruiser just because of that reason, my bet is a lot of other cruiser players did too.

 

But I guess if enough BB players were to complain about it, WG would change it soon enough 

 

(BBs can be taken on by carriers, can't have that. BBs can be citadelled by BB/CA, can't have that. But yea, it's the cruisers who are c*nts, right?)

[dCK_Ad_Hominem]

16 minutes ago, PzychoPanzer said:

Good one...

 

What cruiser players want to limit is the amount of bb players in every game. Seeing 5 dds in a game is in the end quite rare, seeing 5 bbs is the norm.

 

I started playing DD instead of (or better: as well as) cruiser just because of that reason, my bet is a lot of other cruiser players did too.

 

But I guess if enough BB players were to complain about it, WG would change it soon enough 

 

(BBs can be taken on by carriers, can't have that. BBs can be citadelled by BB/CA, can't have that. But yea, it's the cruisers who are c*nts, right?)

Believe it or not, there is a precedent to that statement and it is not my argument that fewer dds would favor bbs and hurt cruisers.

 

I started playing cas only recently and not too well,  but at least in the higher tiers I found some problems to be quite exaggerated.

[darky_fighter]

I don't like the radar mechanic. But: Random matches are low skill matches. Differences in the number of radar ships or DD's are no problem. Just adapt your playstyle to the enemy's team setup.

[Max_Kammerer]

15 minutes ago, darky_fighter said:

I don't like the radar mechanic. But: Random matches are low skill matches. Differences in the number of radar ships or DD's are no problem. Just adapt your playstyle.

Are you serious??? Today battle (in Fletcher) with 5 enemy radar ships (2Miss, 1×Des Moines, 2×Moskva) vs. zero radar ships in our team. Really not problem? Are you playing high tier DDs? If that is not problem for you, you are superunicum and genial player...

[darky_fighter]

11 hours ago, Max_Kammerer said:

Are you serious??? 

 

Yes, I am serious. It is a matter of adaption. SalvoNero mentioned his Yugumo. These are my Yugumo solo stats:

 

Spoiler

It is no problem to survive in high tier matches and to play an active role as a DD. Adapt your playstyle. One simple example:

Des Moines radar range: 9,9 km

Des Moines detectability range by sea: =13,86*0,97*0,88*0,9=10,65 km

So you have got the detection advantage. Not the Des Moines. You can see him but he can't see you. Use it. Spot him. Press F3 and watch his sinking. 

The real problem is: People like the action based playstyle. Not the tactical based playstyle. Positioning is the key to win.

[Tungstonid]

3 hours ago, lameoll said:

i dont feel radars are a problem. As long as both teams have an equal ammount of radar ships.

but when they will ballance that Noone knows. 

 

Isn't that on the other hand unfair against people with ships having different consumables available for the radar slot?

Example: Your team got two Baltimores and a Des Moines. Let's assume for the sake of the example, that you know all of them use radar. Now, the enemy team got a Missouri and a Baltimore as obvious radar ships but since MM now balances the number of radar ships, one is missing. The enemy team also got a Minotaur as the only other - though unlikely - possibility for a radar ship. Now you know that the Minotaur does not use smoke but radar which takes away the element of surprise.

Well, it doesn't seem like a big thing. But it still provides advantages and disadvantages in certain setups.

[SalvoNero]

6 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Same as 5 BB and 5 DD depending on what class you're playing in that game.

I do agree that they should try to balance the amount between the teams ( and remove them from that BB ... )

If there is an average of 12 km between bases, tell me how don't you have too many 4 \\ 5 ships with the radar ??? All the map is under radar coverage. come on!!!!

[159Hunter]

 

3 hours ago, SalvoNero said:

If there is an average of 12 km between bases, tell me how don't you have too many 4 \\ 5 ships with the radar ??? All the map is under radar coverage. come on!!!!

The entire map is under radar coverage? Seriously, do tell me what you are smoking cause it's some good ****.

For starters: there's only limited places where a radar ship can position to use radar from safety, thus severly limiting the radar coverage.

A radar ship in the open will get spotted by you and than you need to designate him as target and your BB will oblige ( cause CA are BB food anyways ).

Radar duration is still limited, so bait the radar and get out. You'll get plenty of time to cap afterwards. If they all huddle in one location: go to another cap.

 

7 hours ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

5dds hurt every game since it becomes an in team competition between them. I would long since favor a 3 dd hard cap, but some cruiserc*nts think that this would hurt their class and thus argue against it. 

 

With 5dds carriers will immediately strike one since the allied cv can't protect all. Fun and engaging: 1

 

Bbs camp harder due to massive torp risk. Fun and engaging: 2

 

A lot of dds will actually become brave Sir Robins and not contest caps. Fun and engaging: 3.

 

Yes, cruisers prey on dds rather easily, but at least in high tiers they are far more capable than having to rely on a large dd count for xp.

Now make the same reasoning as to why people might hate 5 BB in a game ( and why certain people argue against it )

[dCK_Ad_Hominem]

50 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Now make the same reasoning as to why people might hate 5 BB in a game ( and why certain people argue against it )

 

Oh trust me, I don't want them protected. Lowering citadels was a huge mistake as can be seen when watching us bb players nowadays. Also breaks the balance quite a bit because it doesn't apply to all (and shouldn't!). As far as I'm concerned: nerf their aa, quit giving them invincibility while going broadside and reduce their AP damage against dds to 20% of what it is now. It was like this in the old days, when carriers were common.