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

[-FF-]
Players
864 posts
5,901 battles
2 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

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. 

 

25 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

But what if that increase in BBs is a result of radars?

 

4 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

And a claim isn't a proof, even if you claim so.

 

5 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

And now that I know what's behind your arguments, I can safely ignore you.

 

Greetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
15 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

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

We both know you wrote that, so you're just talking about yourself.

 

11 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

Greetings.

Bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,009 posts
13,103 battles
2 hours 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.

Funny guy.

For a guy telling me that I can't read you must certainly have issues reading. Tell me where I sad that I don't want DDs that cap (I said: I have no problems capping when playing DDs), tell me where I said I want CAs who hug islands and don't shoot anything (which is potato gameplay, a good CA player will move up closer AND be able to shoot) and where I said that I want BBs to snipe?

Nowhere, it's just in your head that radar promotes passive gameplay because god forbit somebody could actually spot your DD in a cap or whilst sitting in smoke. What a terrible mechanic, a counterplay to DDs. How dare WG come up with this?

 

But, let me enlighten you on how I play DD:

- check enemy team setup for radar, CV and enemy DD (in that order),

- check spawn point and see what the plan of the team is (if any),

- move to closest cap point that fits the plan,

- as I play a lot of radar ships I can usually predict the hiding spots, so I approach from a direction so I can either:

    - spot radar CA before he reaches that spot,

    - sit in a spot outside radar range where possible,

    - sit in a spot where CA can't shoot me ( radar ship is usually closest and will get off most accurate fire),

    - get out as soon as radar goes off.

- whilst doing that you ofc keep a constant eye on the minimap to see if radar ships get spotted so you know how much danger is around.

 

But hey, if that's too difficult to do, yeah then you can ideed stay back and keep camping and yes. Then you will have a boring game.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGBRD]
Players
322 posts
9,613 battles
4 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Funny guy.

For a guy telling me that I can't read you must certainly have issues reading. Tell me where I sad that I don't want DDs that cap (I said: I have no problems capping when playing DDs), tell me where I said I want CAs who hug islands and don't shoot anything (which is potato gameplay, a good CA player will move up closer AND be able to shoot) and where I said that I want BBs to snipe?

Nowhere, it's just in your head that radar promotes passive gameplay because god forbit somebody could actually spot your DD in a cap or whilst sitting in smoke. What a terrible mechanic, a counterplay to DDs. How dare WG come up with this?

 

But, let me enlighten you on how I play DD:

- check enemy team setup for radar, CV and enemy DD (in that order),

- check spawn point and see what the plan of the team is (if any),

- move to closest cap point that fits the plan,

- as I play a lot of radar ships I can usually predict the hiding spots, so I approach from a direction so I can either:

    - spot radar CA before he reaches that spot,

    - sit in a spot outside radar range where possible,

    - sit in a spot where CA can't shoot me ( radar ship is usually closest and will get off most accurate fire),

    - get out as soon as radar goes off.

- whilst doing that you ofc keep a constant eye on the minimap to see if radar ships get spotted so you know how much danger is around.

 

But hey, if that's too difficult to do, yeah then you can ideed stay back and keep camping and yes. Then you will have a boring game.

But but but... mr 159Hunter... sir that require thinking, useing the map, effort, brain activity... its to much, we (potatoe DDs) cant do it... we dont want to adapt... we want to easy way... the lazy way... make it spot... make the bad radar go away... it is his fault for the passive meta... global warming... 2008 financial crisis :cap_haloween:


 
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
18 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

But hey, if that's too difficult to do, yeah then you can ideed stay back and keep camping and yes. Then you will have a boring game.

I don't have a problem dealing with radar personally. That's not the issue. That has never been the issue. Every time you bring that up you show that you're not reading what I write. So why should I bother reading what you write?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-FF-]
Players
864 posts
5,901 battles
11 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

I don't have a problem dealing with radar personally. That's not the issue. That has never been the issue. Every time you bring that up you show that you're not reading what I write. So why should I bother reading what you write?

You're making fun of yourself. Playing with numbers or semantic won't hide the fact that you did not yet answer my questions about the direct correlation between radar and camping. You claim you have more support from non radar ships, I say I support my DDs with my radar. There is no right or wrong in these facts, nor valid arguments from both of us because this is our own game experience. So instead of just quoting people to have the final word, why not actually giving valid arguments? Because YES, I have carefully read everything you wrote here, and I didn't find any valid argument proving myself wrong when I say radar promotes a supportive playstyle for my teammates DDs and thus being the opposite of what you repeatedly linked to a camping meta. But surely, when my division mate playing DD asks me on vocal to support him on the cap with my radar CA he certainly means camp behind while I cap alone and get annihilated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,754 posts
14,903 battles
4 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

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

Were the old 20Km Shima torpedoes OP?  Was stealth firing OP?  Was smoke OP before any of the changes? Was cruiser having longer firing ranges through captain skill choice OP?  I am not sure any of them were OP, but it could be argued they were undesirable for overall game play.

 

Is the ability of AA to go through land mass OP, probably not, but it might be something for WG to adjust.  Is radar seeing through land mass OP, not in my opinion, but I am not sure that ability isn't something that should be looked at.

 

Note: There is no indicate WG has any plans to make any adjustments.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,009 posts
13,103 battles
22 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

I don't have a problem dealing with radar personally. That's not the issue. That has never been the issue. Every time you bring that up you show that you're not reading what I write. So why should I bother reading what you write?

All I hear is you claiming something and not being able to back up your claim. And when somebody doesn't agree with your claim(or rather opinion) then you go on that they can't read. If that's your way of discussing then you can ignore me. Don't worry, I won't lose a second of sleep over that.

Keep on crying about radar killing the game if that makes you happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,009 posts
13,103 battles
8 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

Were the old 20Km Shima torpedoes OP?  Was stealth firing OP?  Was smoke OP before any of the changes? Was cruiser having longer firing ranges through captain skill choice OP?  I am not sure any of them were OP, but it could be argued they were undesirable for overall game play.

 

Is the ability of AA to go through land mass OP, probably not, but it might be something for WG to adjust.  Is radar seeing through land mass OP, not in my opinion, but I am not sure that ability isn't something that should be looked at.

 

Note: There is no indicate WG has any plans to make any adjustments.  

They can look at it all right, as long as they combine it with hydro and proxy spotting from behind rocks.

It would just mean that radar ships need to reposition.

Share this post


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

why not actually giving valid arguments?

41 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

All I hear is you claiming something and not being able to back up your claim.

So why haven't you given valid arguments and backed up your claims, then? You keep whining about me not backing up my claims, but neither of you have done that yourselves. You've shown your opinion, which I've said I disagree with. You've not shown any valid arguments above what I've shown, and you're the ones demanding more, not me. Since you're the ones demanding a discussion with more substantial proofs, the burden of proof is on you. You don't get to be a hypocrite about it.

 

The main reason I haven't backed up anything with data is because I'm not sure there is any data about how campy the game is, let alone what specific mechanics have to do with it. It's a vague notion to begin with, and not something that can be shown in any of the stats I'm aware of. What I can say is that camping has been on the increase since radar was introduced. I can also say camping is far more prevalent in higher tiers. Battleships exist in excess in all tiers. Radars exists in the tiers that have become the most campy.

 

Also, I keep saying you're not reading what I write because you keep "responding" to arguments I don't make and make assumptions about my own playstyle. Those are factually wrong and completely irrelevant to my arguments. They're strawmen and ad hominems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,754 posts
14,903 battles
43 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

They can look at it all right, as long as they combine it with hydro and proxy spotting from behind rocks.

It would just mean that radar ships need to reposition.

It might be interesting, but it all seems very unlikely; as I think it more likely that WG will add a new anti-radar consumable or some weird thing.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

It might be interesting, but it all seems very unlikely; as I think it more likely that WG will add a new anti-radar consumable or some weird thing.

Probably on a premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGBRD]
Players
322 posts
9,613 battles
6 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

It might be interesting, but it all seems very unlikely; as I think it more likely that WG will add a new anti-radar consumable or some weird thing.

Or just make ships to be visible while they use radar (visible within the radar range) and everyone will be happy. I know that radar and hydro working through land mass is unrealistic, but WoWs was never intended as naval simulator. And if we go to this road... then lets make overpens cause flooding, ships having set amoud of fuel/shells/topedoes, 460 mm shell splitting a DD in half, a hit to the ships bridge stun set ship for x amound of time, not being able to repair moduls with one single buttone, single fire spreding to the entire ship if not atendet, lossing crew members after suffering multiple hits etc etc... this is a very slippery slope. Be carefull what do wish for.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FMW]
Players
110 posts
5 hours ago, Excavatus said:

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

I have the special radar upgrade in a SC, put it on the Neptune and gives me 49seconds when active with a 9.45Km range, that with a 4.4 sec reload on main armaments would make any DD in smoke poopdeck his pants.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles
18 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

Or just make ships to be visible while they use radar (visible within the radar range) and everyone will be happy. I know that radar and hydro working through land mass is unrealistic, but WoWs was never intended as naval simulator. And if we go to this road... then lets make overpens cause flooding, ships having set amoud of fuel/shells/topedoes, 460 mm shell splitting a DD in half, a hit to the ships bridge stun set ship for x amound of time, not being able to repair moduls with one single buttone, single fire spreding to the entire ship if not atendet, lossing crew members after suffering multiple hits etc etc... this is a very slippery slope. Be carefull what do wish for.

I prefer having to rebuy the ship and all upgrades if it sinks, and if your team loses, also retrain a new captain.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGBRD]
Players
322 posts
9,613 battles
2 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

I prefer having to rebuy the ship and all upgrades if it sinks, and if your team loses, also retrain a new captain.

Fair point, but a imagine how long will a game last if everytime you lose a game its hits you harder then a military boot and take you first bourn child... we have long past the time of Ultima Online, and even Dark Souls have check points. Arcade game (witch is World of Warships) will have arcade mechanics. This is part of game balance. This is why historical battles failed in WoT and we dont have them in WoWs. I dont advocate for the devs, they have a lot of work. As I've said the radar and hydro working through land masses is unrealistic and annoying, but more pressing matter is fixing the spotting mechanic - when ship is spotted it appear on the mini-map, but takes 2-3 second to get rendered on the water, becous this is not just problem for DDs, but for CA/CLs and BBs, even for CVs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,754 posts
14,903 battles
1 hour ago, OTECa1 said:

..I know that radar and hydro working through land mass is unrealistic, but...

I don't believe I used the term realist.  I am interest in game play.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
783 posts
5,479 battles

"Radar is unrealistic!. Can see through islands!!".

Ok. Fine. Restrict radar to LOS. Then make every ship visible from the range they could realistically be seen (15+ish km in case of an average WW2 DD). Then make torpedoes an one-shot-trick pony that once you lose them they're gone for the whole of the game (destroyer torpedo reloads happened only in the IJN and it took 30-60 minutes in order to accomplish it depending on the ship class, that's more than what the game timer goes for, so your IJN DD also gets only one torpedo shot per game)

Oh, you don't want that?. then stop making stupid excuses about radar.


as for "promoting camping gameplay". I play all three classes roughly equally (have a slightly higher BB number of games because Tirpitz and from very recently Missouri are my moneymakers) and I play all nations (reason why I'm not T10 in any line is because I spread my gaming time on so many lines). For the record, my first T9 was a DD (fletcher), and is the class I enjoy the most playing because short of a CV is the most influential in games.

Said that, as a DD I don't care about radar. I notice which ships can be a threat in that sense and I work under the constant assumption that at any second I can be put under radar, until the threat is gone (sunk), or clearly spotted very far away from me. If radar goes up is time to GTFO and move towards my egress area away from the threat until the radar goes off and I can come back knowing I have a 2-ish minute window to get things done and get out of dogde again. It's risky, sometimes you get burnt because you planned badly but such is life.

As a BB, I'm TERRIBLY wary of moving into any open water avenue when I don't have a radar nearby, and the second I'm spotted and I can't see the source all my alerts go off and I cancel whatever push/offensive move I have until I know what the threat is, where it comes from, and it's real danger to myself. I'm the kind of guy who gets into a Bismarck or an amagi and moves well close to the cap zones to establish my presence and make cruisers think twice before opening up on my DDs. that means I soak a shitload of damage in the inital stages of the game but such is life and at least those guns aren't aiming at the dudes who're capping and keeping stuff spotted.

But the second I know I'm under threat of a DD, the plan is cut short and I immediately egress into cover until the threat is gone/removed/identified and I can react accordingly. I can somewhat patch damage, can refill hp gone because of fires, but torpedo hits are unrepairable, and more times than not are even worse than getting a twin citadel while sitting broadside to an enemy BB, so DDs I don't take lightly. And radar goes a LONG way in a) keeping them away and b) Keeping me informed of their whereabouts so I can plan my moves to support my team while not being a Long Lance XP Pinhata.

My favorite BB just because of that is the Missouri.  Has the means to keep the DD threat under check while remaining agressive near cap areas without relying in randoms being random. Is nowhere near as tanky as my Tirpitz tho, so I have to be far more conservative in how I play it, but other than that gives me FAR more freedom and control about wether I can push a bit more forward to give more support to my team or I have to keep position because of threat of imminent torpedoing.

If there was no radar, I would play BBs FAR more conservatively and for sure I wouldn't venture as close to the caps as I currently do (once you're so far forward, is a real problem to extricate yourself from there if you're under torpedo threat but don't know from where). So radar does NOT promote camping, on the opposite, it helps those BBs who don't want to stay in spawn firing from 21km.



When I play a cruiser (and my favorite ones are the radar ones because how influential they can be on the game, again, better to have the radar on someone who can think, so that's me, than in the average random) I actually under constant threat. Seriously is ridiculous how prized of a target they are. Even now that I'm close to unlocking Chapayev's hull B (hull A has no radar) the second I'm spotted I'm immediately targetted by 5-6 people (enemy doesn't seem to know how to difference between a stock chapa and a B-hull one, btw). My whole NO grind was a HUGE suffering for the same reason until I understood how to play it - because the second a NO is spotted second the whole hell rains upon it -unless it plays smart. And my current fight with the stock Baltimore (Awful reload guns with a range of 14.4Km, yay me) goes along the same lines because the second a balti icon pops up the whole sky falls on him...unless he's extremely careful with his positioning (and forced by being oneshotted so many times I am well into the way of learning it by heart myself. Is VERY hard to play those ships well given how prized of a target they are).

To be honest I think the ships that suffer the most from radars are the radar cruiser themselves. Cruisers already have a huge bullseye SHOOT ME neon light on top of them all the time for BBs to try their luck. If said neon also says "New Orleans", "Chapayev", "Baltimore", "Donskoi", etc, then it's a mammoth sized giant arrow on the map saying "SHOOT THIS NAO". Which is understandable because radar (and CVs, but nobody likes CVs and for VERY good reasons) is the only thing that keeps DDs at check so destroying the radar platforms of the enemy usually is the first step towards a certified win.

Without radar everyone would be behind an island, except for the DDs themselves and those with a death wish. Radar goes a HUGE way avoiding that. 

Radar does NOT promote camping. It actively counters it. Whoever says the opposite just want to play godmode in their 6km detection range cloaked ship of doom, and sorry, while that can be fun for him, it's not for others, and this game should be fun for every class.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


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

Then make every ship visible from the range they could realistically be seen (15+ish km in case of an average WW2 DD). Then make torpedoes an one-shot-trick pony that once you lose them they're gone for the whole of the game (destroyer torpedo reloads happened only in the IJN and it took 30-60 minutes in order to accomplish it depending on the ship class, that's more than what the game timer goes for, so your IJN DD also gets only one torpedo shot per game)

I've paid for my stealth and torpedo reloads by paying as much for my DDs as you do for your BBs, so shut up about realism. The argument about ship visibility is particularly interesting, since that shows you have no idea what you're talking about. If 15 km is the average visibility for a DD, then the game's actually accurate. The game compresses distances, roughly by 2 to 3 times most of the time, but it varies depending on whatever's convenient for the game balance. And then if you're talking about single-launch torpedoes that at best take half an hour to reload, then you're also talking about torpedoes that are almost completely invisible and will sink or permanently incapacitate a ship with a single hit, as well as battles that takes hours or days to complete. If you're even going to use that argument, use it properly.

 

That's not the argument here, though. It's whether it makes sense, from a gameplay perspective.

 

6 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Without radar everyone would be behind an island, except for the DDs themselves and those with a death wish. Radar goes a HUGE way avoiding that.

That's factually false. Whenever there are games without radars, I notice an overall more aggressive gameplay. I haven't once seen everyone camping behind islands because there are no radars. You're only speaking out of your arse.

 

As for the rest, you benefit from radar personally, so you don't want it gone. Selfish wants as usual. And before you accuse me of the same (well, too late for that), radar has made me want to play ships other than DDs less. If I'm in a DD, I can play around radar. If I'm not in a DD, I have to rely on my allied DDs to play around radar. So no, it's not about me wanting to play around in godmode. If I wanted that, I'd play BBs a lot more.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
783 posts
5,479 battles
2 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

I've paid for my stealth and torpedo reloads by paying as much for my DDs as you do for your BBs, so shut up about realism.


I'm not the making realism-based petitions here. On the opposite I'm the first one saying that arguing for features because of "realism" in a game which is as unrealistic as this one doesn't make any sense. And that if you argue for a feature based on realism, then expect MORE features based on realism. Like, limited main gun ammo magazines, unreloadable torpedoes, realistic gunnery and lead calculation or unrepairable engines.

What's me, I'd love a game with all that stuff but WOWS is not that game and thus complaining about "unrealistic radar that goes through islands" is baseless and as an argument holds no water whatsoever.



 

Quote

The argument about ship visibility is particularly interesting, since that shows you have no idea what you're talking about. If 15 km is the average visibility for a DD, then the game's actually accurate.



No it's not and will never be. In naval engagements aswell as our usual day to day stuff there's a fact that is always truth :

If you can see someone said someone can see you.
Said in other words the 15km detection range was the average visibility of a DD seen from another DD. But if a DD can see a battleship from the bridge at 25km, that means the BB see the DDs bridge from the same range.

There's no stealth technology (not yet at least certainly not in the era of the big gun warship). any ship you could see could see you back. So the whole concealment system is complete made up nonsense, compressed distances or not. And once again is another leg of the "realism chair", if you argue for a feature based on real life limitations of a system, then all systems should have real life limitations. Simple as that.

 

 

Quote

That's factually false. 

 


That's actually true. Most of the people in ships with bad maneouverability who're afraid to move into areas where destroyers might lurk will refuse to do so unless they have something they can rely on to spot them in time to avoid being torpedoed into oblivion, and the only reliable mean to detect a DD at ranges long enough (other than CVs) is radar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

As for the rest, you benefit from radar personally, so you don't want it gone

 

You either have a very defectuous capability to understand written text, have ignored roughly 2/3s of my post, or are willingly refusing to aknowledge it.

Do I benefit from radar personally?. Yes...when I'm in a BB (roughly 1/3 of my playtime).

Definitely NO when I'm in a DD (another 1/3 of my playtime) because it's a tremendous threat that makes thing difficult (also makes them interesting, but that's besides the point)

And more than times NOT either when I'm in a cruiser (given that the high tier ones I own are radar cruisers), because yes, I have ways to lit up destroyers at range, but those means make me one of the biggest priority targets for the enemy team (thus forcing me to stay in cover and/or unnoticed for as long as possible because the second I'm spotted instant rain of hell ensues). In fact I'd actually say that benefitting from radar in radar cruisers  is highly situational. By the mid to late game maybe you can shoot at the stuff you highlight but usually by game start if you want a line of fire to the targets you detect you must open yourself to be targetted by the enemy and again, the second a radar cruiser pops up in the screen of WOWS everyone and their mother instantly shoot at it, so he better be in VERY good cover in the initial stages of a game, so he more times than not won't be able to shoot at the targets he detects from radar. So no, radar really doesn't benefit me in cruisers either, not most of the time. Benefits my team, but not me personally. So, that'd be another 1/3 of my playtime where I don't benefit from it (at least not in cathegoric terms).



The only class I really benefit from radar in is BB, and other than using my moneymakers I play less BB than CA and DD (proven by the fact that I have silver T9 destroyers and cruisers, but I haven't moved past T8 in any BB line). So the whole premise you wrote about that is totally baseless. If I don't want radar gone is not because I personally profit from it but because it opens the door for much more active game dynamics that would be suicidal without it, making the game far more dynamic and less campy as a result.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

I'm not the making realism-based petitions here.

No one is. Well, not seriously. You bringing that up is just a strawman.

 

3 hours ago, RAMJB said:

That's actually true.

No, it's not. There are games without radars. Those don't look the way you claim they look. So don't make that crap up.

 

3 hours ago, RAMJB said:

You either have a very defectuous capability to understand written text, have ignored roughly 2/3s of my post, or are willingly refusing to aknowledge it.

12 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Whoever says the opposite just want to play godmode in their 6km detection range cloaked ship of doom

Well, with things like that, you certainly demonstrate your lack of understanding written text, since you ignore everything anyone says that goes against your personal belief.

 

What you wrote was a love letter to radar and how it doesn't bother you in DDs. You wrote about all the ways you benefit from radar. So yes, it benefits you personally, so you don't want it gone.

 

3 hours ago, RAMJB said:

The only class I really benefit from radar in is BB

If we take what you wrote now into consideration, that's an excellent reason for removing radar, and one I've argued before. BBs don't need radar to make their easy playtime even easier. Whoever says the opposite just want to play godmode in their massively armoured and armed ship of doom, and sorry, while that can be fun for him, it's not for others, and this game should be fun for every class. Just to use a language you understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGBRD]
Players
322 posts
9,613 battles
1 hour ago, AnotherDuck said:

 

AnotherDuck you speak from your presonal experience (~5,589 battles), that radars in general make the game passive. Fair enough.

Me (~6,746 battles), elblancogringo (~4,673 battles), 159Hunter (~10,003 battles) and RAMJB (~3,209) with our combined "presonal experience" of ~24,631 battles (~19,042 more then you) told you in multiple replies that your statement is incorrect. We gave examples with games where there ware no radar ships, an that dont make any difference in the overral gameplay. We used the power of logic, to show you how radars counter passive gameplay (by allowing to push sertein objective/map choke points).

Yet you continue to diffie logic and facts. There are only two type of people that does that: stupid and fanatics. I dont that you're a stupid person or a fanatic of any kind. I dont know that to think...

You kind of contradict yourself by one time telling us that you dont have problem playing around radars (when you play DD) and then tells us that (for you) isnt fun and enjoyeble to play as a DD in games with radar (on the opposed team I suppose). You blame others that pull facts out of they're behinds, but you personaly dont show any(facts) at all, you talk from your personal experience, but as I pointed out above - its verry limited, compared to ours (combined). If only I pointed that your claim is false, ok fair enough, but when more then three does the same, well you lose the argument (I think you've lost it in page 3 on this thread).

Now you will tell me (again) that I dont deserve your attention and you will ignore me, like an ostridge burying his head in the sand. That will only show that you're a sore loser and actualy you're the one that dont deserve our attention, not the other way around.

Unfortunetly I dont think that this reply will convince you and you will pop in the next thread that have the word "radar" in its title, doing the same routine again and again.

 

Peace.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,009 posts
13,103 battles
21 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

So why haven't you given valid arguments and backed up your claims, then? You keep whining about me not backing up my claims, but neither of you have done that yourselves. You've shown your opinion, which I've said I disagree with. You've not shown any valid arguments above what I've shown, and you're the ones demanding more, not me. Since you're the ones demanding a discussion with more substantial proofs, the burden of proof is on you. You don't get to be a hypocrite about it.

 

The main reason I haven't backed up anything with data is because I'm not sure there is any data about how campy the game is, let alone what specific mechanics have to do with it. It's a vague notion to begin with, and not something that can be shown in any of the stats I'm aware of. What I can say is that camping has been on the increase since radar was introduced. I can also say camping is far more prevalent in higher tiers. Battleships exist in excess in all tiers. Radars exists in the tiers that have become the most campy.

 

Also, I keep saying you're not reading what I write because you keep "responding" to arguments I don't make and make assumptions about my own playstyle. Those are factually wrong and completely irrelevant to my arguments. They're strawmen and ad hominems.

Let us see, I'm not the one who started making bold claims and giving opinions. Without backing any of them up. But as soon as you get called and aren't ready to back them up? If you would just see your claims as what they are: your opinion, and that does not equal a fact. ( nor am I saying that my opinion is a fact)

 

At least now you say that you can't back up your claims with data (first bold sentence).  So how you can make the second bold statement, well I don't know. And I don't care, it's your opinion. 

 

These are your first three posts, so now please point me to your arguments.

On 08/03/2018 at 5:47 AM, AnotherDuck said:

But others can. It's stupid, and it should be fixed. Preferably by removing radar entirely. Would make for a better game.

This is your personal feeling, you're entitled to one. But if someone then says: I don't agree, well then that isn't an ad hominem reply now is it?

On 08/03/2018 at 6:37 AM, AnotherDuck said:

I don't think they listen to the players as much as they claim. Most complaints about it is that it doesn't make sense that it goes through islands and that they're caught off guard by something as stupid as that. I mean, if it was called X-Ray or Wallhack, then I could understand, but...

 

And I've seen too many complaints about one-sided games just because one team had more ships with radars.

Again, you're just giving an opinion. 

I guess we could go count posts and we'll find more posts on BBs complaining about HE, or people complaining about CVs.

On 09/03/2018 at 3:13 AM, AnotherDuck said:

If you want to talk about boring, how about the kind of gameplay radar encourages? Max range torpedo sniping and island humping.

 

Why would I be surprised that you argue for selfish benefits? You assume that of others, so the normal conclusion is that it applies to yourself as well.

Again, your own opinion. 

 

So THREE questions for you:

- Please, point me to arguments that you've used? I have yet to read them.

- How will you balance DDs if radar gets removed?

- Point me to the post where I made assumptions about your playstyle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
3,118 posts
15,992 battles
21 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

Battleships exist in excess in all tiers. Radars exists in the tiers that have become the most campy.

 

oh boy... :Smile_facepalm: any sort of mistake at high tiers get punished a lot harder than at lower tiers. thats why we see "avarage" players camping at high tiers more.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×