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

Surface Radar

178 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
37 minutes ago, Ysterpyp said:

And AA that goes through islands.. makes sense

That at least has a bit of excuse in that you can assume the planes are flying high enough that it's realistically possible, especially considering the weird scaling of ships versus islands and buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
3,352 posts
9,472 battles
4 hours ago, Systergummi said:

I dont agree. Especially when playing cw. Its a common tactic to layer multiple (3+) radars to close down caps. It happens in randoms to, but not as often. When this is done well it hinders dds from spotting as well as capping. Leading to stale and campy play. Making radars line of sight would benefit gameplay. The great players would adapt so they would still be unicorns.

As I can see from your emblem you are a IJN DD captain as well.. Like me..

I feel your pain, especially for CW.. but in CW the lack of different tactics and strategies are killing me mostly. and killing the fun of it..

1 DD goes here with a radar capable ship.. (If there are 2)

and rest goes to other cap.. tactics are %90 this..

there are spots where DM need to park..

There are spots where Montanas need to go, and sit bow on..

 

I dont know this is because of the map and mode design or lack of creativity due to the fear of losing.

But when I compare it with WOT CW or TB tactic variaty it is just dull.

 

And for the radar, I support my case.

Even in CW, If there is an island in the cap, I want them to waste radar on me while I am capping behind that islan.

no 3 ships can cover a cap with permanent radar. I've never seen it.

and I've never seen 3 radar ships goes to a same cap.. mostly there are 2 radar ships and they split.

and even enemy sends 3 radar ships to a cap.. that means with at least 1 DD.. and probably the BB would be heading there too..

the other cap would be a piece of cake to cap..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,529 posts
11,480 battles
1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

no 3 ships can cover a cap with permanent radar. I've never seen it.

Well, they probably could - either with permanent one or close enough that it might just as well be permanent. Still, 3 Radar cruisers on one cap is like having all your DDs go one flank in CV-less Radar-less game with 3-4 DDs per side: sure, the DD blob can easily chase away any enemy DDs on the cap they go for, maybe even get a kill in the process, but giving the enemy full control of the rest of the map is kinda unlikely to be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
3,352 posts
9,472 battles

the longest radar in this game is what? 35 seconds?

If they fire it back to back.. makes what? 1 min 45 seconds..

what is the shortest reload?

2 mins 30 seconds?

 

I dont have the exact numbers and too busy at work to check it out on wiki..

I dont remember the radar module upgrade numbers..

 

can someone check the numbers and do the math?

I dont think it is possible for 3 radar ships to perma radar a cap throughout the game. But I may be wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,480 posts
15,684 battles

Oh this again, maybe you guys should actually play radar cruiser and tell me how OP they are.

Playing them a lot has thought me their strengths and weaknesses.

 

Therefore I can't even remember when an enemy radared me AND subsequently got me killed (not saying that 1 out 10 surprise radar didn't hurt). You can play around it, it just takes some time to adjust how you play and then it's doable.

 

@Excavatus DM radar with module is 56 seconds duration, standard cooldown is 114 sec with Jack of all trades, so add the flag and three DM can perma radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
11 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Well, they probably could - either with permanent one or close enough that it might just as well be permanent. Still, 3 Radar cruisers on one cap is like having all your DDs go one flank in CV-less Radar-less game with 3-4 DDs per side: sure, the DD blob can easily chase away any enemy DDs on the cap they go for, maybe even get a kill in the process, but giving the enemy full control of the rest of the map is kinda unlikely to be worth it.

A blob of ships that cooperates can often steamroll the opponents, which is also why lemmingtrains sometimes work. Random groups of cruisers don't tend to be as coordinated as random groups of destroyers, though.

 

Just now, 159Hunter said:

Oh this again, maybe you guys should actually play radar cruiser and tell me how OP they are.

Oh this again, maybe you should actually read what you respond to. The problem isn't "OP". The problem is "boring".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,480 posts
15,684 battles
3 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Oh this again, maybe you should actually read what you respond to. The problem isn't "OP". The problem is "boring".

Boring?

- If you are telling me that DD are camping in the back because of radar: bad DD players, I have no issues using my DDs to cap, spot and torp. You just need to be a bit more carefull and not yolo rush a cap head first without planning an exit strategy. If that is boring to you...

- If you are telling me that the BBs are camping in the back because of radar then we're talking about potatoes who'd camp in the back anyways.

 

So enlighten me exactly on how radar makes game boring.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
9 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

So enlighten me exactly on how radar makes game boring.

Since radar was introduced, the game has become more campy. DDs push less because their already harsh punishments for any mistake are even harsher. BBs push less because there are fewer DDs who spot for them. Cruisers hump islands because they think that's fun gameplay because they have radar, even if they can't shoot anything. And most of the time they don't need to; anyone can shoot at a spotted ship. You saying it's only bad players who play more passively is bullcrap. Most players are average, surprisingly enough. Most players tend to play more passively with radars in the game.

 

So what you want is DDs who don't try to cap, CAs who place themselves outside any firing angles, and BBs who snipe. That's the result of what you want. More passive and stale gameplay.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts
9,766 battles
11 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Since radar was introduced, the game has become more campy. DDs push less because their already harsh punishments for any mistake are even harsher. BBs push less because there are fewer DDs who spot for them. Cruisers hump islands because they think that's fun gameplay because they have radar, even if they can't shoot anything. And most of the time they don't need to; anyone can shoot at a spotted ship. You saying it's only bad players who play more passively is bullcrap. Most players are average, surprisingly enough. Most players tend to play more passively with radars in the game.

 

So what you want is DDs who don't try to cap, CAs who place themselves outside any firing angles, and BBs who snipe. That's the result of what you want. More passive and stale gameplay.

Cruisers (CA/CL) place themselves outside of firing angles, becouse battleships (BB) focus-fire them (easy way to farm dmg). Destoryers (DD) does go for the caps, unless they're IJN DDs, that in 80% of the games tend rush for the map border and farm the camping BBs. Battleships (BBs) tend to camp at spawn 50-60% of the games, becous they're range/accuracy/skill leve (of the player) allow it.

 

Without the radars/hydro the game will be realy passive, becous everyone will have to wait till the smoke of DDs/CLs run out so they can push set cap/ choice point.

 

In conclusion

The point that Surfice radar/Hydroacoustic search is 100% invalid!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
1 minute ago, OTECa1 said:

Without the radars/hydro the game will be realy passive, becous everyone will have to wait till the smoke of DDs/CLs run out so they can push set cap/ choice point.

So that's why before radars were introduced the game was less passive instead of more as you suggest.

 

In conclusion

The point you made up is 100% invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,127 posts
7,085 battles
26 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Since radar was introduced, the game has become more campy. DDs push less because their already harsh punishments for any mistake are even harsher. BBs push less because there are fewer DDs who spot for them. Cruisers hump islands because they think that's fun gameplay because they have radar, even if they can't shoot anything. And most of the time they don't need to; anyone can shoot at a spotted ship. You saying it's only bad players who play more passively is bullcrap. Most players are average, surprisingly enough. Most players tend to play more passively with radars in the game.

 

So what you want is DDs who don't try to cap, CAs who place themselves outside any firing angles, and BBs who snipe. That's the result of what you want. More passive and stale gameplay.

Imo the camping meta has nothing to do with radar. More with BB who can punish every CA CL or DD on one salvo. And cruisers need to be close to caps to contest them with radar, and DDs go cap anyway. Like said, plan an exit strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
6 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

Imo the camping meta has nothing to do with radar. More with BB who can punish every CA CL or DD on one salvo. And cruisers need to be close to caps to contest them with radar, and DDs go cap anyway. Like said, plan an exit strategy.

Can't say I agree with that observation.

 

And to make it perfectly clear, telling me to plan an exit strategy only reveals that you're not actually reading what I write, because it has absolutely no bearing on the issue. Most players won't read it, much like you don't read what you respond to, so most players will continue camping more because of radars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts
9,766 battles
9 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Can't say I agree with that observation.

 

And to make it perfectly clear, telling me to plan an exit strategy only reveals that you're not actually reading what I write, because it has absolutely no bearing on the issue. Most players won't read it, much like you don't read what you respond to, so most players will continue camping more because of radars.

Then why we have camping CA/CLs and BBs, and DDs ignoring caps in games wihtout single radar ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
513 posts
5,039 battles
10 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

Citing those numbers makes me question whether you own a Baltimore at all, let alone know how to play one.

 

I'm also not quite sure what you're arguing. First you say that the entire line would be completely useless without radar, and then you say the radar is practically useless anyway.

Well, pointless is not the same as useless, and the numbers are correct. Only a fully upgraded Baltimore has an 8 second reload.

 

Each cruiser line has a gimmickd the US line is the only line where the gimmick has an equal in all other cruiser lines. AA and radar is what shapes the US line, and the radar only becomes available after you grind 7 tiers of ships. I am merely pointing out that removing radar makes US cruisers be no more than paper armor ships with slow shells and long reload that could be useful for AA if they could survive getting to a central position or even if there are any carriers in the match. If you take the radar from the game, US lines become pointless to grind, RN lines simply continue using the smoke, and Russian lines continue being supreme spammers.

 

And I never said the radar is useless. I simply pointed out it's a situational advantage that occurs for only a brief period of time. The main ones to complain about radar are DDs, but they always fail to understand that they have the lowest detection in game and are essentially a permanent line of sight radar for an entire time the entire match. Radars on the other hand show all enemy ships in a 9Km radius of the radar for 20 seconds. That feeling you get when you get radiated is the same feeling BBs and CAs get when they are perma spotted for an entire match despite not being able to see the origin of that spotting. The difference is that the DD has to retreat and swerve for 20 seconds, whilst the BBs and CAs have to watch for torps and incoming fire for the whole match.

 

Just deal with it. Simple.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,127 posts
7,085 battles
15 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

so most players will continue camping more because of radars.

If you think removing radar will prevent people who camp to continue doing so, it is laughable at the very least.

Radar allows you to know that there is a safe zone around you without DD who can punish you if you push, which is why I'm happy when a fellow cruiser uses his own and tell me it's safe, so I can push in my BB.

Remove radar? yeaaaaah definitely it will help the camping meta, and make BB captains confident...

DD use their speed and good maneuverability to evade when spotted, you can't seriously ask for the removal of a tool which allow other classes to detect the one with best concealment. Again it is an integral part of the current balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
7 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

Then why we have camping CA/CLs and BBs, and DDs ignoring caps in games wihtout single radar ?

Do you understand the concept of the word "more"? As in, "In games with no radar present, the gameplay is more often more dynamic." It does not mean "With radar everyone camps, and without radar no one camps."

 

2 minutes ago, EgyptOverseer said:

Well, pointless is not the same as useless, and the numbers are correct. Only a fully upgraded Baltimore has an 8 second reload.

Baltimore has 15 s reload stock and 10 s reload with the upgraded guns, at least from the tech-tree view. And with a 35 s radar you can easily fire three salvos with the stock guns, and four salvos with the upgraded guns.

 

5 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

If you think removing radar will prevent people who camp to continue doing so, it is laughable at the very least.

See above about the concept of the word "more". I think you'll find it enlightening.

 

5 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

Radar allows you to know that there is a safe zone around you without DD who can punish you if you push, which is why I'm happy when a fellow cruiser uses his own and tell me it's safe, so I can push in my BB.

Having DDs around you allows you to know there's a safe zone around you. DDs can also spot torpedoes, unlike radars. And they're active at all times.

 

Although personally when I play DDs I prefer players like you. They're so much easier to torp because they think they're safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,127 posts
7,085 battles
9 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Having DDs around you allows you to know there's a safe zone around you. DDs can also spot torpedoes, unlike radars. And they're active at all times.

Sorry man, I can't have any DD around me, you remember? It is a camping meta. Obviously I will not follow my DDs and support them, protecting them from other DDs and allowing them to capture points, so I will not be close enough for them to spot threats for me. I don't have any tool to push and actively support them, like... I don't know... a radar maybe?

Oh wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts
9,766 battles
18 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Do you understand the concept of the word "more"? As in, "In games with no radar present, the gameplay is more often more dynamic." It does not mean "With radar everyone camps, and without radar no one camps."

So me and two other showed that camping meta has nothing to do with radars, but you continue with the "anti-radar crusade" (I should have known, from the other threads with you, that this will end up badly). Okay have it your way.

 

18 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Baltimore has 15 s reload stock and 10 s reload with the upgraded guns, at least from the tech-tree view. And with a 35 s radar you can easily fire three salvos with the stock guns, and four salvos with the upgraded guns.

Isnt 3x15=45? and 4x10=40?

and 3x13=39? (with Main Battery Modification 3)?

18 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Having DDs around you allows you to know there's a safe zone around you. DDs can also spot torpedoes, unlike radars. And they're active at all times.

And how often does DDs are around you (unless you're in division), in games without radars? And I would say that a CV does even better jobe at spotting ships and torps, but that just me :cap_cool:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
20 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

Sorry man, I can't have any DD around me, you remember? It is a camping meta.

Of course it is. Just remove radars to lessen the camping meta so you'll have more DDs to help you. Problem solved. Haven't you been reading what I've said? Oh, wait...

 

18 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

So me and two other showed that camping meta has nothing to do with radars, but you continue with the "anti-radar crusade" (I should have known, from the other threads with you, that this will end up badly). Okay have it your way.

No one has shown anything.

 

18 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

Isnt 3x15=45? and 4x10=40?

and 3x13=39? (with Main Battery Modification 3)?

With a 15 s reload you can shoot three salvos in 30 s. One at 0 s, one at 15 s, and one at 30 s.

 

18 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

And how often does DDs are around you (unless you're in division), in games without radars?

As a DD player, I get more backup from non-radar ships than radar ships. As a CA or BB player, if I back up a DD that DD is more likely to help me out with spotting (and smoke) than if I sit behind islands or snipe from max distance. My experience in all ships (even if DDs are my most played ships, I also play a lot of CAs and BBs) is that it's more fun without radars.

 

18 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

And I would say that a CV does even better jobe at spotting ships and torps, but that just me :cap_cool:.

So with CVs, radar is redundant. Nice of you to agree. :cap_cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts
9,766 battles
3 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

As a DD player, I get more backup from non-radar ships than radar ships. As a CA or BB player, if I back up a DD that DD is more likely to help me out with spotting (and smoke) than if I sit behind islands or snipe from max distance. My experience in all ships (even if DDs are my most played ships, I also play a lot of CAs and BBs) is that it's more fun without radars.

Well if they have seen you forum post, Its now wonder that they dont support you :cap_tea: and sorry I forgrot... as elblancogringo mentioned, they're camping behind islands remember :cap_cool:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,127 posts
7,085 battles
10 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

No one has shown anything.

I'm litteraly saying that radar allows me to push with my DDs to help them securing capture points. I don't know where you find a camping problem here.

There are many threads in this forum about the camping meta, and they're related to the squishiness of cruisers against BBs, and also for BB AP against DD.

When you say that after radar was added to the game the camping meta increased it is maybe right. But what if it was at the same time that the number of BBs per game increased drastically?

Show me a direct correlation between radar and camping. I'm sorry, I will probably negate it. As radar is a tool whose purpose is to detect ships in a certain range of action, forcing the radar ship to be close enough to this action. What you keep saying can't be true.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
6 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

I'm litteraly saying that radar allows me to push with my DDs to help them securing capture points.

And I'm literally saying that my experience is the other way around, despite all of the theories you have of what will or won't happen.

 

13 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

When you say that after radar was added to the game the camping meta increased it is maybe right. But what if it was at the same time that the number of BBs per game increased drastically?

But what if that increase in BBs is a result of radars? Radars make it harder for DDs, which means it easier for BBs, so radars are partially responsible for the BB meta. I've always argued that if you want to make cruiser play more enjoyable, you need to increase their survivability against battleships. If you increase their capability to sink destroyers, you decrease their survivability against battleships.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts
9,766 battles
2 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

And I'm literally saying that my experience is the other way around, despite all of the theories you have of what will or won't happen.

 

But what if that increase in BBs is a result of radars? Radars make it harder for DDs, which means it easier for BBs, so radars are partially responsible for the BB meta. I've always argued that if you want to make cruiser play more enjoyable, you need to increase their survivability against battleships. If you increase their capability to sink destroyers, you decrease their survivability against battleships.

Or the increase in BBs have nothing to do with radars and everything with them having submurged citadels/turtlebacks and better consealment then some CAs. And with the increase in BBs we see and increase in DDs aswell, and at the same time dercrease in CA/CLs, that once again prove that the camping meta has nothing to do with adding Radars. But even this fact will not stop you from blaming the passive play on the radars(witch btw exist even in games where there are no radar ships, but that just dont fit your story, so you will negate it as usual).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles

There are many reasons for the increase in BBs. Claiming everything is because of one or two things is misunderstanding how different game mechanics interact with each other. And a claim isn't a proof, even if you claim so.

 

11 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

...but that just dont fit your story, so you will negate it as usual.

This is what we call, "projecting". You assume I make my arguments the same way you do. And now that I know what's behind your arguments, I can safely ignore you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
322 posts
9,766 battles
2 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

When the facts are against me... to bad for the facts... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×