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

This is why radar ships MUST be balanced by MM

72 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[-TPF-]
Players
2,401 posts
10,969 battles

Clearly WG must have a new Chaff premium consumable in the works. (I'm not joking... rather than adding a balancing factor to the MM based on the presence or absence of a consumable, they should just provide adequate countermeasures).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,761 posts
17,458 battles

I am with the OP here there should be a mechanic to spread RADAR evenly amongst teams......... however...... it cannot be done ever...... why? .... Because there is no REQUIREMENT for any one of the cruisers in question to actually mount RADAR it is OPTIONAL....if you balance around RADAR then what happens with the 95% of players who would never dream of running RADAR on RN CL in place of smoke? Or the PA DD that could also swap out smoke for RADAR? However much we would 'like' to see balance.... it is patently impossible to allow for consumable choices..... The only way to do it would be to Balance MM around actual mounted consumables.... but that is a slippery slope that could also end up with CV games being balanced around the number of Cruisers or DD running AA consumables....... Nice idea, on paper, but unworkable and frankly worrying in the potential for further restrictions and also abuse.....

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,914 battles
11 minutes ago, DJ_Die said:

As for learning to dodge shells...

The more curcial thing about dodging shells is that in order to be successful with that, you have to create distance (certainly more distance than you're at if you're within radar range, even floaty Des Moines shells are plenty accurate enough within 10km) which inevitably means that staying alive also means staying nowhere near the capture zones if the enemy radar ships have any sense on where they position themselves.

 

I could've spent the entire game well outside radar range of any of those radar ships ... but I wouldn't have been anywhere near the objectives doing that. And this is just hearsay, but I've been told that not playing the objective isn't a reliable way of winning games.

 

4 minutes ago, cherry2blost said:

Because there is no REQUIREMENT for any one of the cruisers in question to actually mount RADAR it is OPTIONAL

 

I'm not sure how much effort that would be, but WG could possibly include a consumable check upon entering the MM queue that checks if you have radar mounted or not.

Going even further than that, it could also check for other consumables to achieve some form of capability parity with other consumables as you noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,761 posts
17,458 battles
12 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

The more curcial thing about dodging shells is that in order to be successful with that, you have to create distance (certainly more distance than you're at if you're within radar range, even floaty Des Moines shells are plenty accurate enough within 10km) which inevitably means that staying alive also means staying nowhere near the capture zones if the enemy radar ships have any sense on where they position themselves.

 

I could've spent the entire game well outside radar range of any of those radar ships ... but I wouldn't have been anywhere near the objectives doing that. And this is just hearsay, but I've been told that not playing the objective isn't a reliable way of winning games.

 

 

I'm not sure how much effort that would be, but WG could possibly include a consumable check upon entering the MM queue that checks if you have radar mounted or not.

Going even further than that, it could also check for other consumables to achieve some form of capability parity with other consumables as you noted.

 

Capability parity? So we end up with variety and interesting loadouts being removed ....? May as well play co-op then matey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,914 battles
6 minutes ago, cherry2blost said:

 

Capability parity? So we end up with variety and interesting loadouts being removed ....? May as well play co-op then matey

"Some form of" was the operative part there. Not saying the game has to field to carbon-copy teams, but making sure they have roughly the same capabilities with consumables.

 

For example in a CV game, if your team's cruisers all opted for hydro and the enemy team's cruisers all run DFAA that would be quite an uphill battle.

Or as another example, say one team gets two IJN DDs with TRB, whilst the other team gets two IJN DDs with smoke (skewed their relative performance one way or the other depending on the game mode).

 

All in all, make it less of a diceroll of what you're getting in a team and make it more about how people use their ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,761 posts
17,458 battles
9 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

"Some form of" was the operative part there. Not saying the game has to field to carbon-copy teams, but making sure they have roughly the same capabilities with consumables.

 

For example in a CV game, if your team's cruisers all opted for hydro and the enemy team's cruisers all run DFAA that would be quite an uphill battle.

Or as another example, say one team gets two IJN DDs with TRB, whilst the other team gets two IJN DDs with smoke (skewed their relative performance one way or the other depending on the game mode).

 

All in all, make it less of a diceroll of what you're getting in a team and make it more about how people use their ships.

 

But surely the variety and mystery of not knowing what your opponent is running is half the fun that makes this game what it is...... nah no real need to balance consumables, just fix RADAR so that it is line of sight and cannot 'see' through mountains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
315 posts
7,138 battles

Domination with a radar advantage that heavily favours one team rarely ends well for the team with less or no radar ships.  You're team can't cap as well because any decent cruiser player will use radar as soon as they notice the cap is contested meaning you're DD has to withdraw probably loosing most if not all their HP, the other teams DD smoke's up and you have no counter.....they get a free cap/s.  You're already at a disadvantage early game and you pretty much have to hope the enemy team potato's.

 

Seriously how can people actually think the OP isn't right when all he's asking for is radar balance? 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
919 posts
8,487 battles

This has been demanded a long time ago, developers don't give a crap. Probably because it could inconvenience their BB cash cow audience with slightly longer queue times.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,761 posts
17,458 battles
Just now, Dampfboot said:

This has been demanded a long time ago, developers don't give a crap. Probably because it could inconvenience their BB cash cow audience with slightly longer queue times.

Actually a bloody good point... now that BB's have RADAR Too........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,914 battles
5 minutes ago, Dampfboot said:

This has been demanded a long time ago, developers don't give a crap. Probably because it could inconvenience their BB cash cow audience with slightly longer queue times.

I'd say the opposite would be the case.

 

BBs like to shoot and they can only shoot (or at least reliably hit) what they can see. If radar ships were evenly distributed between teams, that would mean that on average BBs would get more cruisers helping to spot ships in smokes (and less frequent threats of DDs sitting savely in smokes with no good options to flush them out).

 

I genuinely see no good reason not to balance radar ships, no matter how I look at it.

 

2 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Not to be a [edited], but aren't both the Hsienyang and Edinburgh radarships..?

If you feel particularily adventurous, yeah.

Those ships have to trade quite a valuable consumable for it though so the majority of players don't do that and even if they were (they weren't, Edinburgh in particular got very salty when he got nuked in his smoke) that would still only be two low range, low duration radars outmatched by the enemy rader ships in range except for the New Orleans and duration (except for the Chapayev, but it gets much better radar range in return).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,761 posts
17,458 battles
6 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Not to be a [edited], but aren't both the Hsienyang and Edinburgh radarships..?

 

Yes....

PA DD 8 to 10 RADAR capable

US CL 7 to 10 RADAR capable

RN CL 7 to 10 RADAR capable

RU CL 8 to 10 RADAR capable

US BB 9 RADAR capable

 

16 Ships capable of mounting RADAR...

 

Did I miss any?

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,727 posts
14,576 battles
4 minutes ago, cherry2blost said:

 

Yes....

PA DD 8 to 10 RADAR capable

US CL 7 to 10 RADAR capable

RN CL 7 to 10 RADAR capable

RU CL 8 to 10 RADAR capable

US BB 9 RADAR capable

 

Did I miss any?

Probably not. So MM would have to take this into account... 2 Minos vs 2 Des Moines would be fine..

 

Edit... Black has radar too. Pensacola doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,627 battles
2 hours ago, principat121 said:

But you still have to show that you lost because of the radar ships.

Enemy DDs being able to push freely as any attempt of your DDs to fight them ends up with your DDs radared - while your team has no such ability - not reason enough?

 

Long since radar should have been balanced, but hey, @Aotearas, it could have been worse - you could have been a DD down aswell :Smile_teethhappy:

 

7 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Not to be a [edited], but aren't both the Hsienyang and Edinburgh radarships..?

IF they sacrifice their smoke for it. Might be fun, but generally totally not worth it. At least for the non-unicorn players.

 

4 minutes ago, cherry2blost said:

US BB 9 RADAR capable

Here you should clarify that just 1 out of 2 tier 9 BBs is Radar capable, as Iowa can't mount it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,627 battles
3 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

2 Minos vs 2 Des Moines would be fine..

So 2 ships running smoke vs 2 ships running radar? Yeah, definitely "fine"

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,727 posts
14,576 battles
1 minute ago, wilkatis_LV said:

So 2 ships running smoke vs 2 ships running radar? Yeah, definitely "fine"

You don't understand the argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,761 posts
17,458 battles
7 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Here you should clarify that just 1 out of 2 tier 9 BBs is Radar capable, as Iowa can't mount it

My point was that MM has a hard enough time as it is now.... add in 16 variables extra into the equation and it will be mayhem.... I am NOT arguing against the idea just suggesting how it will be unworkable.... as said before the RADAR issue would be mitigated massively IF they would fix them to LoS only.....

 

Oh and it's 17 forgot the Flint... Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,727 posts
14,576 battles
9 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

If you feel particularily adventurous, yeah.

Those ships have to trade quite a valuable consumable for it though so the majority of players don't do that and even if they were (they weren't, Edinburgh in particular got very salty when he got nuked in his smoke) that would still only be two low range, low duration radars outmatched by the enemy rader ships in range except for the New Orleans and duration (except for the Chapayev, but it gets much better radar range in return).

Well, how would the MM know what modules these ships have? How do you define the radarships that should be MM in a certain pool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,914 battles
10 minutes ago, cherry2blost said:

 

Yes....

PA DD 8 to 10 RADAR capable

US CL 7 to 10 RADAR capable

RN CL 7 to 10 RADAR capable

RU CL 8 to 10 RADAR capable

US BB 9 RADAR capable

 

16 Ships capable of mounting RADAR...

 

Did I miss any?

 

Radar starts at tier VIII for non-premium ships, not tier VII. Only premium ships (Atlanta, Indianapolis and Belfast) at tier VII get radar.

 

So in total we'd have Atlanta, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Baltimore, Des Moines, Missouri, Black, Chapayev, Dimitri Donskoy, Moskva, Belfast, Edinburgh, Neptune, Minotaur, Hsien Yang, Chung Mu and Yue Yang, seventeen ships in total that can mount radar (includes all premiums).

 

Plus presumably the upcoming tier VIII-X US CLs, which would boost the total number of radar capabable ships to twenty.

 

1 minute ago, loppantorkel said:

Well, how would the MM know what modules these ships have? How do you define the radarships that should be MM in a certain pool?

As proposed earlier, MM could be amended to check if ships have the radar consumable mounted.

 

Alternatively a stopgap measure would be to simply assume that the traditional radar ships have it mounted and that RN CLs and PA DDs have smoke instead (because that's how majority of people outfit their ships after all).

 

Even if that latter system would be far from flawless and couldn't account for players choosing different consumable loadouts, it would improve the radar distribution a fair bit, or at the very least marginalize the chance of games where one team gets several radar ships vs the other teams' none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,715 posts
12,392 battles
3 minutes ago, cherry2blost said:

My point was that MM has a hard enough time as it is now.... add in 16 variables extra into the equation and it will be mayhem.... I am NOT arguing against the idea just suggesting how it will be unworkable.... as said before the RADAR issue would be mitigated massively IF they would fix them to LoS only.....

 

Oh and it's 17 forgot the Flint...

 

I've told you countless times, mate, the Flint doesn't get radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,761 posts
17,458 battles
1 minute ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 

I've told you countless times, mate, the Flint doesn't get radar.

edited to Black

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,761 posts
17,458 battles
2 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

Radar starts at tier VIII for non-premium ships, not tier VII. Only premium ships (Atlanta, Indianapolis and Belfast) at tier VII get radar.

 

So in total we'd have Atlanta, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Baltimore, Des Moines, Missouri, Black, Chapayev, Dimitri Donskoy, Moskva, Belfast, Edinburgh, Neptune, Minotaur, Hsien Yang, Chung Mu and Yue Yang, seventeen ships in total that can mount radar (includes all premiums).

 

Plus presumably the upcoming tier VIII-X US CLs, which would boost the total number of radar capabable ships to twenty.

 

So it's likely even worse..... 20 ships that MM would have to 'work around'..... love the idea Aoteras... but it would break the matchmaker even worse than it is now.... sad but true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,715 posts
12,392 battles
22 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Plus presumably the upcoming tier VIII-X US CLs, which would boost the total number of radar capabable ships to twenty.

 

...and you could bet your arse that, with my luck, I'd be playing the only DD in that match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,378 posts
8,054 battles
On 2/20/2018 at 9:08 PM, Aotearas said:

What proof would you require of me to prove they were essential to winning the game? I hope you don't seriously ask me to tell you at precisely which point the use of radar decided the game because that is simply ludicrous.

But exactly THAT you have to show to proof that the distribution of radar ships decided this match. You came here to say, quote: "This is why radar ships MUST be balanced by MM". You still fail to support your claim without doing that. What's left without this, is just another *Edited useless thread about this topic.

 

*Edited

On 2/20/2018 at 9:08 PM, Aotearas said:

Or alternatively, can you (or anyone else that seems so furiously opposed to the idea of balancing radar ships between teams) make a coherent argument about why such a change were detrimental to the game?

 

Because I NEVER wrote here what I think about this topic. I just scrutinise your thread. Just as simple as that. Or are you one of "those" people who can't stand it, when they did not get what they want in the first place and so thinking that everyone who is not with them is against them?! *Edited

Edited by Nohe21
*This post has been edited by the moderation team due to non-constructive inappropriate and disrespectful comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,727 posts
14,576 battles
6 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

As proposed earlier, MM could be amended to check if ships have the radar consumable mounted.

 

Alternatively a stopgap measure would be to simply assume that the traditional radar ships have it mounted and that RN CLs and PA DDs have smoke instead (because that's how majority of people outfit their ships after all).

 

Even if that latter system would be far from flawless and couldn't account for players choosing different consumable loadouts, it would improve the radar distribution a fair bit, or at the very least marginalize the chance of games where one team gets several radar ships vs the other teams' none.

It is possible to work around the radar issue and I agree it's annoying to face 4-0 radars, but it's a rare occurrence and I'm not sure how high this should be prioritized. Good if they fix it, fine if they don't prioritize it, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×