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

RADAR

89 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
12 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Obviously YOU  have a problem with Radar, but u wont admit that, still u want it removed.

U have no problem with the DD distribution so its fine. Even tho, they can be equally game deciding as the uneven distribution of Radar ships.

Yes, I have a problem with how radar affects the game. That's what I've been saying all along. Haven't you been reading what I've written?

 

I don't have much of a problem dealing with radars in DDs myself. If that's what you're saying, you really haven't been reading what I've written.

 

Compared to the number of times I've been in a game with uneven DD distribution, I hear very little complaints about it. I also see those complaints only at the beginning of the match, not throughout or at the end. Unlike complaints about radars or CVs. So no, I don't see it as a huge problem, either personally or what I've seen other complain about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,619 posts
7,513 battles
1 hour ago, AnotherDuck said:

Yes, I have a problem with how radar affects the game. That's what I've been saying all along. Haven't you been reading what I've written?

I don't have much of a problem dealing with radars in DDs myself. If that's what you're saying, you really haven't been reading what I've written.

 

Nope, its exactly what i meant. U are saying u dont have a problem with Radar yourself, yet the way u are argueing makes much more sense when u actually do have a problem with it.

 

1 hour ago, AnotherDuck said:

Compared to the number of times I've been in a game with uneven DD distribution, I hear very little complaints about it. I also see those complaints only at the beginning of the match, not throughout or at the end. Unlike complaints about radars or CVs. So no, I don't see it as a huge problem, either personally or what I've seen other complain about.

 

I dont see ppl complaining about Radar at the end of the match. I rarely see them at the start either. Only then when lately are like 10+ radar ships in the game, thx to WG pushing Missouri "sales". But ive said all the time: Those Missouris are not worth the Radar they are carrying.

Ppl complaining about uneven DD distritubtion does however happen aswell. Usually its less frequent because RU DDs arent played as much as other DDs. Still the question is: When noone is opening his mouth, is it ok? Its not my fault when ppl see a DD, they think they are all equally good for capping.

Thats the whole point im making: Only because u are argueing heavily against Radar, but not against DD distribution doesnt mean that one is wrong and the other is right. If u cant undestand the difference between IJN DDs or RU DDs, then the whole point of argueing is futile.

MM needs to consider Radar ships, to which u respond: If Radar is that effective that MM needs to consider it, it must be removed.

MM needs to consider DD roles aswell, so i can equally argue that DDs need to be removed then.

MM DOES consider CVs because they are always matched, and when CVs werent matched before the other option would have been to remove them.

So where is the problem in all those cases? MM needs to make better matches - problem solved. That CVs need a rework is not tied to MM. Still its better to give both teams a CV than a matchup with 1vs0 CVs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
11 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Nope, its exactly what i meant. U are saying u dont have a problem with Radar yourself, yet the way u are argueing makes much more sense when u actually do have a problem with it.

So you're making stuff up to have an argument. If you don't make stuff up, you don't have an argument.

 

11 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Thats the whole point im making: Only because u are argueing heavily against Radar, but not against DD distribution doesnt mean that one is wrong and the other is right. If u cant undestand the difference between IJN DDs or RU DDs, then the whole point of argueing is futile.

So just because I don't agree with your bullcrap, the point of arguing is futile? Well, then don't have a bullcrap opinion. Problem solved. I mean, all you say is, "just because you argue that doesn't mean it's true". That's a non-argument. I can just as easily say that to you. Just because you say what you say doesn't mean you're right. If you don't understand that, there's no point in arguing.

 

16 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

MM needs to consider Radar ships, to which u respond: If Radar is that effective that MM needs to consider it, it must be removed.

MM needs to consider DD roles aswell, so i can equally argue that DDs need to be removed then.

Except that you're comparing apples and bananas. Sure, you can argue that, but as you said, that doesn't mean you're right. It's a skewed argument on unequal basis. I don't think MM needs to consider DD roles, so that point is irrelevant. I can play a DD role in a Fiji if I need to. Don't tell me that's better suited for the role than some Russian DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,619 posts
7,513 battles
1 minute ago, AnotherDuck said:

So you're making stuff up to have an argument. If you don't make stuff up, you don't have an argument.

 

Yes, u are always right, thats what we are getting here!

Im making stuff up XD wow u are aweseome. I literally quoted u where u said what i explained how it is in my OPPINION! Cant make stuff up when it feels to me that way - u know, u cant really influence that.

 

1 minute ago, AnotherDuck said:

So just because I don't agree with your bullcrap, the point of arguing is futile? Well, then don't have a bullcrap opinion. Problem solved. I mean, all you say is, "just because you argue that doesn't mean it's true". That's a non-argument. I can just as easily say that to you. Just because you say what you say doesn't mean you're right. If you don't understand that, there's no point in arguing.

 

Ok so everyone else is saying bullcrap, and once again u are totaly right. I clap my hands in disbelieve...

I gave u an equal arguement about MM not being able to distribute by DD roles - yet its like im talking about bananas and u are talking about apples.

 

1 minute ago, AnotherDuck said:

Except that you're comparing apples and bananas. Sure, you can argue that, but as you said, that doesn't mean you're right. It's a skewed argument on unequal basis. I don't think MM needs to consider DD roles, so that point is irrelevant. I can play a DD role in a Fiji if I need to. Don't tell me that's better suited for the role than some Russian DDs.

 

U used an arguement that MM should consider Radar ships to distribute it evenly among teams, pulled it out of context to use it for your own agenda as: Radar needs to be removed.

So by using someone elses arguement, i might aswell bring in the DD distribution - why does it suddenly matter if u think its right or wrong. U didnt even use the uneven Radar distribution as an arguement by yourself!

 

Im dont talking to u. If u have nothing better to say than "bullcrap" then its useless anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
9 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Im making stuff up XD wow u are aweseome. I literally quoted u where u said what i explained how it is in my OPPINION! Cant make stuff up when it feels to me that way - u know, u cant really influence that.

You're making stuff up about my motivation. You're trying to twist it into something that's explicitly against what I say just so your pet theory holds up. But it doesn't, since it's all in your mind.

 

11 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

I gave u an equal arguement about MM not being able to distribute by DD roles - yet its like im talking about bananas and u are talking about apples.

No, that's not an equal argument. MM works fine without considering specific DD nations. Radars and DDs are bananas and apples. They're not the same thing, they don't affect the game in the same way, and you're not using the argument in the same way. The argument for radars is that they're there, and they make the game worse. They make the game more stale just by being there. A lot of people also say CVs make the game worse, in their current implementation, so that's a somewhat more apt comparison. DDs don't make the game worse. Removing them would make the game worse. Or are you suggesting that the existance of DDs is a major complaint? You're just looking for a wording that on the surface looks like a similar argument, but once you dig down even a little bit, you find that they're not comparable.

 

As for the rest, please write in English. I have enough trouble interpreting what you mean as it is. If you don't want me to call you out on your bullcrap, don't say so much bullcrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
2,272 posts
11,139 battles
On 14-1-2018 at 10:36 PM, T0byJug said:

But DD players are made of stronger stuff we are not BBabies we adapt and overcome.. and killing a radar equipped ship is SOOOO much more satisfying 

 

Still, radar spam is annoying, especially on bbs as has been the case lately.

 

These two games I had right after another

2mpl6ir.jpg

 

j8k46t.jpg

 

Made me quite pissed tbh. Still, we won, and when I also mocked that second red team for losing despite more radarspam and OP bs, I got chatbanned. Still worth it though :P

 

 

 

Also @MrConway@Sub_Octavian @orWhomEverAtYourFirm can you maybe pretty please start looking into radar spread in matchmaking?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,588 posts
8,271 battles
3 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

 I also see those complaints only at the beginning of the match, not throughout or at the end. Unlike complaints about radars or CVs.

 

Well. Beeing ignorant about something and present it as the final truth is just no ground for a discussion. I actually hear more complaints late in the round, with the sounds like "was last from the start, we had 1 DD less". And I cant even remeber one round, where someone complained in the end about radars. This only happens in the start. Something, which you claim to be the complete opposite. But now, go on, tell me, how I have no clue, twist the reality and you speak for "most of the people".

 

2 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

So you're making stuff up to have an argument. If you don't make stuff up, you don't have an argument.

 

2 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

So just because I don't agree with your bullcrap, the point of arguing is futile? Well, then don't have a bullcrap opinion. Problem solved.

hmmm. I wonder... This reminds me of someone... Who would that be? Oh yea @AnotherDuck . I would never dare to try to talk to ppl like that and at the same time present my completly subjectiv point of view as fact. Just get out of here, you dont know how to discuss. Problem solved.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,619 posts
7,513 battles
32 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

You're making stuff up about my motivation. You're trying to twist it into something that's explicitly against what I say just so your pet theory holds up. But it doesn't, since it's all in your mind.

Well, what did u do with that arguement that MM should consider Radarships? U twisted that around to "Radar needs to be removed". Talking about who is twisting arguements here...

 

32 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

No, that's not an equal argument. MM works fine without considering specific DD nations. Radars and DDs are bananas and apples. They're not the same thing, they don't affect the game in the same way, and you're not using the argument in the same way. The argument for radars is that they're there, and they make the game worse. They make the game more stale just by being there. A lot of people also say CVs make the game worse, in their current implementation, so that's a somewhat more apt comparison. DDs don't make the game worse. Removing them would make the game worse. Or are you suggesting that the existance of DDs is a major complaint? You're just looking for a wording that on the surface looks like a similar argument, but once you dig down even a little bit, you find that they're not comparable.

 

It doesnt matter if the subject is different. But the effect is similiar. U feel that ppl are in general bothered by Radar ships. Im not bothered by Radar (even tho i do get radared when playing Neptune f.e.), yet its frustrating when one team has all radar and the other has none. The same feeling when my team has 2 RU DDs and the others get IJN/US + another as a bonus. I dont really care if u see it as equal or not - we are talking about Radar distribution, an arguement YOU PULLED OUT OF CONTEXT!, and i added DD distribution to underline the importance of MM checking for Radars/DDs.

I cant even follow the logic that the game is getting worse with Radar.

In your world without Radar, DDs are rushing towards caps, every other ship behind them (btw why would they?), supporting each other everyone gets action game done in 5 mins or what?

I think something like this is more likely:

Either DD goes to cap, or DD flanks around because he wont fear ANY retalitation from the enemy, since noone is able to spot him.

Two options for both scenarios:

DDs in cap battle each other - usually one gets killed. The surviving DD is now free to farm all ships which might be in reasonable distance. Any ships supporting the losing DDs side are now forced to flee.

DD goes to cap and wont get disturbed by an enemy DD. After capping he is free to roam as he see fits, as long as he got a general clue about where the enemy DDs might be. The less DDs and the more caps there are, the more freedom he gets. RPF becomes even more valuable at that point for DDs.

 

Ok the other option when the DD plays selfishly from the start:

He spots another DD doing the same stuff (maybe not too likely), world of DDs minigame starts, surviving DD has the ability to roam free.

If he is able to flank around, he can roam free without retaliation.


Only the DDs own stupidity will ever make him a target basicly ever again.

Conclusion for other ships: Camp even further back, run run run and hide all the time, since spotting DDs is totaly impossible now. Once a team has less or no DDs, its almost a done deal.

 

32 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

As for the rest, please write in English. I have enough trouble interpreting what you mean as it is. If you don't want me to call you out on your bullcrap, don't say so much bullcrap.

Hum learn englush? Obviously im writing chinese :cap_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
94 posts
678 battles
On 14/01/2018 at 7:49 PM, xxNihilanxx said:

 

That would just make radar redundant which is something that good map/situational awareness can do anyway.

I agree.

 

However, I do wonder if a DD should be as easily detected as any other class of warship to a radar. Some sort of scaling factor where DDs are a little less likely to be detected and BBs much more likely to, since the far larger ship would reflect a far larger radar signature and be easier to detect at a given range.

 

Note - I said "wonder if". Not "should be".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,619 posts
7,513 battles
3 minutes ago, Parakitteh said:

However, I do wonder if a DD should be as easily detected as any other class of warship to a radar. Some sort of scaling factor where DDs are a little less likely to be detected and BBs much more likely to, since the far larger ship would reflect a far larger radar signature and be easier to detect at a given range.

 

With the smoke changes this became pretty much obsolete. Using Radar against BB is highly situational, yes i probably done it a couple of times, either to help my teammate or to detect that BB in smoke, if he is not shooting, or detect a BB early in a Cyclone. But im hesitant to use it since i rather target DDs or RN CLs, if they are still around.

For all other usage: BBs get spotted earlier, since their detection is worse, so it would need rather insane range against big targets, like 15km or so. And then again, why u would want to desperately attack a target that far away?
Would make sense, but a useful implementation is not given imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
94 posts
678 battles

It would act as a slight passive buff to Destroyers and Cruisers, and a truly meaningless nerf to BBs and CVs due to their detection ranges anyway, often beyond most radar ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
7 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Well, what did u do with that arguement that MM should consider Radarships? U twisted that around to "Radar needs to be removed". Talking about who is twisting arguements here...

No. The argument that radarships needs special MM means radarships are not balanced with other ships. If just adding a consumable to a ship makes it so different that you need to mirror it, it's simply not balanced with anything else. That's what it means in itself; no twisting needed. It's one of the arguments I use for why the game would be better balanced without radars.

 

7 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Either DD goes to cap, or DD flanks around because he wont fear ANY retalitation from the enemy, since noone is able to spot him.

So you're saying that's what happens in every game where there are no radars? It's easy to see where you got this theory from. You made it up, since it's not something that actually happens in the game when there's no radar. That goes for all of your scenarios without radar. They're just not what happens when there's no radar, and the proof is there in the game. It wasn't World of DDs before radar was introduced, so why would it be that if you remove radars? The strongest tool against flanking DDs are RL and after that CVs and other DDs. Radar doesn't impact flanking much at all, but it does affect capping.

 

7 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Conclusion for other ships: Camp even further back, run run run and hide all the time, since spotting DDs is totaly impossible now. Once a team has less or no DDs, its almost a done deal.

So why has the game become campier since the introduction of radars? Why is the game significantly campier in higher tier games where there's radar? Radar promotes a campier gameplay, not the other way around. So no, that's not the conclusion. It's just something you make up.

 

8 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Beeing ignorant about something and present it as the final truth is just no ground for a discussion.

So why are you still talking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,619 posts
7,513 battles
7 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

No. The argument that radarships needs special MM means radarships are not balanced with other ships. If just adding a consumable to a ship makes it so different that you need to mirror it, it's simply not balanced with anything else. That's what it means in itself; no twisting needed. It's one of the arguments I use for why the game would be better balanced without radars.

As i said, a difference in 1 radar is no bigdeal, since that Radarship cant be everywhere. When one team has 3 Radars and the other has none it suddenly is a big deal, because on any cap/flank where a radar ship is, the DD has much more freedom right from the start. How is this so hard to understand? U are just ignoring my point about Torpboat/Gunboat DDs because they dont fit yout agenda. Doesnt make them less relevant. Ive seen many threads/ppl in game being pissed when their team has only RU DDs while the other has IJN/US DDs.

 

 

Quote

So you're saying that's what happens in every game where there are no radars? It's easy to see where you got this theory from. You made it up, since it's not something that actually happens in the game when there's no radar. That goes for all of your scenarios without radar. They're just not what happens when there's no radar, and the proof is there in the game. It wasn't World of DDs before radar was introduced, so why would it be that if you remove radars? The strongest tool against flanking DDs are RL and after that CVs and other DDs. Radar doesn't impact flanking much at all, but it does affect capping.

They cant even understand games with CV or without CV. But when there i no Radar around anymore, there will be ppl taking advantage of it. 

I dont know what RLs are supposed to be?

CVs arent in every match - this worked maybe early in the game when CVs where a think. CVs got nerfed -> DDs roamed free (ill trust ppl on this one who actually were around then @El2aZeR (sry for mention, but i think u can vouch for that)). Too many DDs? Nerf DD/introduce Radar = makes perfect sense.

Other DDs can only counter DDs when they are in equal roles. That was my arguement about RU vs IJN/US/KM DDs... Its not the same thing!

Radar does impact flanking... If u suddenly spot a Radar ship while flanking there is a chance u get screwed. And when its a ship with lower radar range than detection range it still makes it harder to do something on that flank. Without Radar u can do whatever u want. And ofc Radar does effect capping, but its possible to work against it.

How come that DDs are not usually the campers? Its BBs who are camping all the time, and someone mentioned a nerf to BBs in Alpha testing in another thread. A point he thinks BBs started to camp in the back, and after i read his whole story, it does make sense. Ofc happened way before Radar was introduced. I play aggressive with or without Radars around. I just take more caution when there are radar ships. If u are behind an island, usually u are safe from it.

 

 

Quote

So why has the game become campier since the introduction of radars? Why is the game significantly campier in higher tier games where there's radar? Radar promotes a campier gameplay, not the other way around. So no, that's not the conclusion. It's just something you make up.

 

Since BBs are the ones camping, and not DDs, i dont think it really is like that. Alltho, i havent played before Radar was around.

Gameplay in hightiers is campier because every mistake will get punished harder than on lower tiers. And ppl still believe that "repair costs" are tied to how much damage you received :Smile_facepalm: Today a Conqueror on atlantic basicly went back to J5... clearly he is effected by Radar :cap_fainting:

You are the one making stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
52 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Alltho, i havent played before Radar was around.

Okay, so you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,672 posts
16,811 battles
58 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

i think u can vouch for that

 

Yeah, pretty much.

The problem with radar is that it was a shoddy patchwork to a more substantial problem, namely that CVs went extinct. As soon as the CV population recovers even by a little bit (as seen currently) DD play becomes a lot more hostile, having to be extremely careful in watching out for both air threats and enemy radar ships as either of them can send them back to port in a very short amount of time. And as most people aren't used to paying attention to both (or are simply incapable or even refuse to do it) it becomes a cluster-[edited].

Radar, along with hydro, also forces the role of DD hunters on cruisers, raising the skill floor of what was supposed to be the most easy class to play in an already extremely hostile environment for cruisers (*cough* BB overpopulation *cough*) while demanding them to choose an entirely different specialization in terms of consumables, upgrades and captain skills contrary to their original role (air defense).

 

Thus either

radar (along with hydro) needs a substantial nerf or even removal

or

the role of CVs in countering DDs needs to be reconsidered.

 

As the removal of radar/hydro is extremely unlikely at this stage of game development the latter choice is the more viable option, even if it has high potential of causing a plethora of other problems.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
94 posts
678 battles

Radar removal - fine, whatever, I have no vested interest here - but why remove Hydro? Hydro is much shorter range than Radar at detecting ships, and is also useful for warning your team about incoming torpedoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,672 posts
16,811 battles
21 minutes ago, Parakitteh said:

useful for warning your team about incoming torpedoes.

 

Precisely why it shouldn't exist. One-button-win mechanics in general are garbage and do nothing but water down average skill. With the removal of hydro cruisers can also finally focus on their one true role.

The existence of DFAA I can accept due to the (very reasonable) mechanical limitations of AA itself, but even that could be reworked a little.

 

But, as I stated previously, removal of either is extremely unlikely at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
2,272 posts
11,139 battles
6 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

was supposed to be the most easy class to play in an already extremely hostile environment for cruisers

Agree with you all the line & happy to see a dedicated and good cv player arguing CV counters dd too hard :Smile_great:

 

 

But question: where did you ever see stated that cruisers are/are supposed to be the most easy class?

 

This is just out of curiosity. I only started playing 1.5 yrs ago, maybe before that cruiserlife was (more) easy, but when I started the 5 BB about every game was "normal".

 

 

Or are you trolling, like WG is in the ingame tooltips stating cruisers have "excellent armor"? :Smile_glasses:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTTX]
Weekend Tester
773 posts
4,135 battles
2 hours ago, PzychoPanzer said:

But question: where did you ever see stated that cruisers are/are supposed to be the most easy class?

 

This is just out of curiosity. I only started playing 1.5 yrs ago, maybe before that cruiserlife was (more) easy, but when I started the 5 BB about every game was "normal".

 

Can't remember when/where or even IF I ever actually read anything official, but I have the same impression that I definitely remember WG intending for cruisers to be the beginner friendly, introductory class around the time I started playing just before closed beta.

 

Didn't actually play cruisers much back then (apart from the Murmansk which was for a time quite possibly the single most disgustingly OP ship in the history of the game, so not representative of the class) so can't really remember whether they were 'easier' to play, but they were more numerous. Worth also noting that there's never really been a time where BBs 'exploded' in popularity, they've always been popular. It wasn't the 4.99 BB per side average we have today but probably about 4 per side even back in the days of closed beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
9 minutes ago, rvfharrier said:

Worth also noting that there's never really been a time where BBs 'exploded' in popularity, they've always been popular. It wasn't the 4.99 BB per side average we have today but probably about 4 per side even back in the days of closed beta.

I think the major one was at the time when the German battleships were introduced. Before that, it was as you say usually about 4 per team. After that it's consistently been 5, with some exceptions for various quests, or odd times of the day. However, it might not sound like much, but when you have 3-5 BBs per game, it's a very different experience than if you consistently have 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTTX]
Weekend Tester
773 posts
4,135 battles
2 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

I think the major one was at the time when the German battleships were introduced. Before that, it was as you say usually about 4 per team. After that it's consistently been 5, with some exceptions for various quests, or odd times of the day. However, it might not sound like much, but when you have 3-5 BBs per game, it's a very different experience than if you consistently have 5.

 

Indeed and I'd love to see a 3-4 BB average, I vary back and forth between 3 or 4 per side being ideal so call it 3.5... maybe 3.3. The situation was better in the past; however, I think a lot of people have rosy retrospection when it comes to BB numbers over the years. People (none in this particular thread but I have seen it on these forums) longing for a return to the time when 2-3 BBs per side was standard, but unless it was the case in Alpha then that time has never actually existed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
94 posts
678 battles
9 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Precisely why it shouldn't exist. One-button-win mechanics in general are garbage and do nothing but water down average skill. With the removal of hydro cruisers can also finally focus on their one true role.

The existence of DFAA I can accept due to the (very reasonable) mechanical limitations of AA itself, but even that could be reworked a little.

 

But, as I stated previously, removal of either is extremely unlikely at this point.

Yeah, hydro isn't a "one button win mechanic" any more than holding down the 3 key and the LMB is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,672 posts
16,811 battles
5 hours ago, Parakitteh said:

Yeah, hydro isn't a "one button win mechanic" any more than holding down the 3 key and the LMB is.

 

Torpedoes can easily be avoided by using a bit of intuition, watching the match timer and WASD hax.

Hydro doesn't allow any sort of counterplay. That's a one-button-win mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
94 posts
678 battles

Hydro barely doubles the detection range of torpedoes, to less than 3km at Tier VI.

 

Even at 2-2.2km, many ships still can't exactly dodge a well-laid torpedo spread.

It is an element of team play, supporting your teammates (the majority of which do not have hydro), and a vague defensive bonus against destroyers, within their deadly close-range fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×