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

[UNICS]
Players
4,292 posts
15,733 battles
1 hour ago, stewie533 said:

What I understand from programmers, is that if it looks easy to do... it isn't.

I don't know anything about game programming, so I will trust the professionals. They say it is not possible due to technical restraints, I believe them.

Radars seeing through islands? I don't think it's because of technical restraints.. I think they want it that way for balance/gamemechanics. At least I think I remember seeing something like that. I kind of was opposed to radars and hydros going through islands, mostly for it being unintuitive and that it takes away some elements of the game. Pressing a button to see what's on the other side of an island is kind of boring. Now, I don't mind it as much. The radarships clearly have their disadvantages too, but optimally I think the game might benefit from another solution. In the end you'd want a better solution than being invisible or visible and that goes for concealment numbers, smoke and radars....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
3,207 posts
18,692 battles
2 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

If they need special MM, they're not balanced. That means they're in a special category, above all other cruisers. That's the opposite of balanced.

DDs should also have mirrored MM. So does that make DDs also special category above all other classes?

CVs have mirrored mm because they have high influence  on outcome. Not because of they are unbalanced or broken. Having high influence =/= being unbalanced or broken.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

If they need special MM, they're not balanced. That means they're in a special category, above all other cruisers. That's the opposite of balanced.

DDs should also have mirrored MM. So does that make DDs also special category above all other classes?

CVs have mirrored mm because they have high influence  on outcome. Not because of they are unbalanced or broken. Having high influence =/= being unbalanced or broken.

Not long ago we had games with, for example,  3 DDs on one side and 5 on the other . This is why now the MM prevent the difference in the number of DD between team to be more then +1/-1 (across all tiers), a.k.a. this is a special MM. The same thing happen with the CV MM as you (ghostbuster) mentioned.

 

But sorry I forgot... Using logic to argue with AnotherDuck is pointless. He will just ignore it... or twist your words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TS1]
Players
658 posts
8,162 battles
12 hours ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

I think WG does wants to do something about BB over-population, just that they refuse to actually address the issue head on; and probably with good reasons.

"Good" reasons. For a very generous definition of "good". Well, that's as far as I'm willing to trust them at least.

 

58 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

DDs should also have mirrored MM. So does that make DDs also special category above all other classes?

CVs have mirrored mm because they have high influence  on outcome. Not because of they are unbalanced or broken. Having high influence =/= being unbalanced or broken.

1 hour ago, OTECa1 said:

This is why now the MM prevent the difference in the number of DD between team to be more then +1/-1 (across all tiers), a.k.a. this is a special MM. The same thing happen with the CV MM as you (ghostbuster) mentioned.

So DDs have +/-1 MM, which is fine. Isn't that the same as BBs have? I at least haven't seen any other MM in games for a long while. So essentially it's just cruisers that don't get special MM. That means DDs aren't really special in that way.

 

 

 

Also, not part of this argument, but it's worth repeating that CVs are broken and unbalanced.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


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

So DDs have +/-1 MM, which is fine. Isn't that the same as BBs have? I at least haven't seen any other MM in games for a long while. So essentially it's just cruisers that don't get special MM. That means DDs aren't really special in that way.

You're missing the point. All that you say is correct, but we talk about "mirror MM" for radar cruisser. The problem with radar (if there is one) is that the MM dont differentiate (for example) Kutuzov, from Chapayev, or in other way - the number of radars in the bouth teams is not mirrored. We have cases with 2-3 radar cruisers in one team, and 0-1 in the other. This kind of special  MM we need.

 

Example:

Des Moines and Donskoi vs Moskva and Baltimore.

 

 

And about the CV... I think they just have high skill cap... a very high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TS1]
Players
658 posts
8,162 battles
26 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

You're missing the point. All that you say is correct, but we talk about "mirror MM" for radar cruisser. The problem with radar (if there is one) is that the MM dont differentiate (for example) Kutuzov, from Chapayev, or in other way - the number of radars in the bouth teams is not mirrored. We have cases with 2-3 radar cruisers in one team, and 0-1 in the other. This kind of special  MM we need.

I'm going to assume "mirror MM" means +/-1 MM. Since exact mirroring is uneccessary.

 

I just talked about DDs and MM because that's what you used to compare to radar, which I find kinda iffy since it's like comparing apples to apple trees. One consumable to one entire class. It kinda implies that one consumable is powerful enough to be considered a class of its own.

 

However, weren't there some ideas about MM being affected by nationality of ships being talked about some (long) time ago? I think it was mostly about the huge difference in play style between different DDs. I think that could be applicable here as well.

 

That said, I think both radar and smoke should be nerfed in tandem to get a more active meta.

 

26 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

All that you say is correct

So if I say that I'm the God King of humankind then I'm correct? Wow, this opens so many doors. :Smile_glasses:

 

Share this post


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

I'm going to assume "mirror MM" means +/-1 MM. Since exact mirroring is uneccessary.

 

I just talked about DDs and MM because that's what you used to compare to radar, which I find kinda iffy since it's like comparing apples to apple trees. One consumable to one entire class. It kinda implies that one consumable is powerful enough to be considered a class of its own.

 

However, weren't there some ideas about MM being affected by nationality of ships being talked about some (long) time ago? I think it was mostly about the huge difference in play style between different DDs. I think that could be applicable here as well.

 

That said, I think both radar and smoke should be nerfed in tandem to get a more active meta.

Well I dont think another nerf on smoke will be a good thing. RN CL line was hit hard enough as it is and the step towards more active meta (its not that passive for me right now), might come from tuning down the BBs(survivability/fire power/concealment take your pick). They're the reason CA/CL play more passive/safe (and maybe the low skill level). That dont effect the DDs as much, but with them the problem is the distribution of gun-boats/hybrids vs pure torp-boats (IJN DD line) in the MM ( I think this is what you have in mind when you talk about MM bein affected by nationality of ships). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TS1]
Players
658 posts
8,162 battles
Just now, OTECa1 said:

Well I dont think another nerf on smoke will be a good thing. RN CL line was hit hard enough

Yeah. That's the thing. RN CLs being based on smoke was kind of a stupid idea. PA-DDs having super smoke was also a stupid idea.

 

Just now, OTECa1 said:

the step towards more active meta (its not that passive for me right now), might come from tuning down the BBs(survivability/fire power/concealment take your pick). They're the reason CA/CL play more passive/safe (and maybe the low skill level).

I picked. Their ability to sneak up on and delete cruiers is what causes cruisers to be sidelined in the meta. BB survivability isn't a great problem.

 

Just now, OTECa1 said:

That dont effect the DDs as much, but with them the problem is the distribution of gun-boats/hybrids vs pure torp-boats (IJN DD line) in the MM ( I think this is what you have in mind when you talk about MM bein affected by nationality of ships). 

I think T10 DDs are best divided into three categories, torp DDs, hybrids and Kebab with the first and last of those having some issues contesting caps.

 

Nationality is a start and I mentioned it because I remembered a discussion about it, but you really need to look at the type of ship, since a Kebab isn't the same as a Grozovoi. And the upcoming US CL line will be different from the US CA line.

 

The problem is that I think I've heard WG say that making MM more specific than it is now will cause longer queueueues.

 

Share this post


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

DDs should also have mirrored MM. So does that make DDs also special category above all other classes?

CVs have mirrored mm because they have high influence  on outcome. Not because of they are unbalanced or broken. Having high influence =/= being unbalanced or broken.

The difference between DDs are radar cruisers is that DDs balance themselves, and don't get better the more of them you get. MM for radar cruisers is just "more = better", while for DDs you have an optimal number (which is 2-3). It's also a game that designed for three types of ships, and somewhere CVs are supposed to fit in (but they kind of don't). It's not a game designed for radar ships versus ships without radars that are just worse.

 

I mean, if all your cruisers are radar cruisers, you're not bad off. If all your ships are destroyers, you're probably going to lose, since you lack the power of all other ships. So your comparison fails.

 

CVs are broken. Your argument is invalid.

 

8 hours ago, OTECa1 said:

But sorry I forgot... Using logic to argue with AnotherDuck is pointless. He will just ignore it... or twist your words. 

Then it would benefit you to start using actual logic rather than personal attacks. I mean, if all you can do is resort to an ad hominem, why should I listen to you in the first place? You're not showing any kind of reason to reason with.

 

7 hours ago, OTECa1 said:

The problem with radar (if there is one) is that the MM dont differentiate (for example) Kutuzov, from Chapayev, or in other way - the number of radars in the bouth teams is not mirrored. We have cases with 2-3 radar cruisers in one team, and 0-1 in the other. This kind of special  MM we need.

So you're saying radar cruisers are stronger than non-radar cruisers. That's you literally saying radar cruisers are better than non-radar cruisers, and I don't even need to twist your words to claim so. If you think it's balanced when some ships are objectively more powerful and useful to the team than other ships of the same tier and type, then you don't understand what game balance is.

 

6 hours ago, OTECa1 said:

...and the step towards more active meta (its not that passive for me right now), might come from tuning down the BBs(survivability/fire power/concealment take your pick).

So if you remove radar you turn down BBs' survivability. I'm glad you agree with my solution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
3,207 posts
18,692 battles
7 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

The difference between DDs are radar cruisers is that DDs balance themselves, and don't get better the more of them you get. MM for radar cruisers is just "more = better", while for DDs you have an optimal number (which is 2-3). It's also a game that designed for three types of ships, and somewhere CVs are supposed to fit in (but they kind of don't). It's not a game designed for radar ships versus ships without radars that are just worse.

 

I mean, if all your cruisers are radar cruisers, you're not bad off. If all your ships are destroyers, you're probably going to lose, since you lack the power of all other ships. So your comparison fails.

 

CVs are broken. Your argument is invalid.

 

 

CVs are not broken. They were stupidly powerfull before game release. But now, they are not broken at all. The issue is, difference between a potato and an average player is huge while playing CVs. Thats why people think that they are broken . Because they get a potato in their team against a decent CV player. Btw. everything that counters DDs/makes DDs life harder is broken in your eyes. So your argument is surely valid... 

 

Having more DDs than enemy team is better i dont know what you are talking about. Your team has 4 DDs, enemy has 3. 4 is better. Yeah thats a game and in this game radar consumable has a place too. Also, do you think ships without radar are straight up worse than ships with radar? Ehhmm ok...:Smile_facepalm:

 

What? Ofc you are probably gonna lose. Same with the radar cas. Because in both cases there are gonna be counters in the enemy team. For example: If all your ships are radar CAs and if enemy gets BBs&high dpm ships (like hindenburg), you are gonna lose. My comparison doesnt fail. DDs/radar CAs both has high influence on the game.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

CVs are not broken. They were stupidly powerfull before game release. But now, they are not broken at all. The issue is, difference between a potato and an average player is huge while playing CVs. Thats why people think that they are broken . Because they get a potato in their team against a decent CV player.

It's not about being overpowered or underpowered (which is also what I say about radar, despite your constant attempts at misunderstanding it so your arguments make sense). They're broken because they have a far too great of an impact on the game. Not only does the huge difference between CV players play a role, but that effect is also amplified by how much carry potential a CV has, compared to the fail potential. That's way too much power put onto a single player, and it makes the game less interesting for other players since they have less impact.

 

20 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Btw. everything that counters DDs/makes DDs life harder is broken in your eyes. So your argument is surely valid... 

You could try to reach at least a little further into your arse when you pull that crap out. I mean, one of my main goals is for the average game to have more cruisers and fewer battleships. How's that making it more easy for DDs?

 

21 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Having more DDs than enemy team is better i dont know what you are talking about. Your team has 4 DDs, enemy has 3. 4 is better.

Not in my experience, no. Four DDs is too much in most situations. It depends a little on what DDs you have, but generally you're better off with some other ships instead. DDs are more self-regulating than other ships. The more of them they are, the more they diminish each other's effectiveness and reduce the risk of the enemy's equally inflated numbers to other allied ships. CAs generally spread their health and fire potential around as you'd expect, BBs are much more of a threat to CAs than to each other, and CVs just multiply their power with each other.

 

23 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Also, do you think ships without radar are straight up worse than ships with radar?

Since you failed to read plain English, let me spell it out for you: A common complaint is that radar cruisers need to be included in the MM logic because having too many is too powerful and too few is too weak. That's not my own argument. It's the argument a lot of other people use, and most of them fail to realise what that argument actually means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
3,207 posts
18,692 battles
56 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

It's not about being overpowered or underpowered (which is also what I say about radar, despite your constant attempts at misunderstanding it so your arguments make sense). They're broken because they have a far too great of an impact on the game. Not only does the huge difference between CV players play a role, but that effect is also amplified by how much carry potential a CV has, compared to the fail potential. That's way too much power put onto a single player, and it makes the game less interesting for other players since they have less impact.

 

You could try to reach at least a little further into your arse when you pull that crap out. I mean, one of my main goals is for the average game to have more cruisers and fewer battleships. How's that making it more easy for DDs?

 

Not in my experience, no. Four DDs is too much in most situations. It depends a little on what DDs you have, but generally you're better off with some other ships instead. DDs are more self-regulating than other ships. The more of them they are, the more they diminish each other's effectiveness and reduce the risk of the enemy's equally inflated numbers to other allied ships. CAs generally spread their health and fire potential around as you'd expect, BBs are much more of a threat to CAs than to each other, and CVs just multiply their power with each other.

 

Since you failed to read plain English, let me spell it out for you: A common complaint is that radar cruisers need to be included in the MM logic because having too many is too powerful and too few is too weak. That's not my own argument. It's the argument a lot of other people use, and most of them fail to realise what that argument actually means.

Yes thats what i have said multiple times but you probably ignored it. They have huge impact on game. And thats what they should have. Its an aircraft carrier. Ofc its gonna have big impact on game. And carry potential sure. But its the only class which also depends on enemys gameplay. If they all stay together, its the only class which loses its strike potential. All WG needs to do about CVs is fixing buggy UI. Thats it.

 

You have one and only goal and which is removing radar. And removing radar is not the solution. For some reason you cant understand it. We had that situation. I remember teams with 8 DDs without radar. I remember everyone camping and DDs torping from max range. (You were complaining about radar making games campy. This is how it was without radar) So dont tell me fairytales here. Lower BBs survivablity. Raise the citadels of BBs to yamato levels. So misplays can get punished. This would make them less noobfriendly and lower the BB population.

 

I was talking about non-CV game ofc. Do you prefer an extra BB or a CA over a DD? Wow... you should have such high experience level...

 

I dont care who told this. I read it on your post. "Ships without radar that are just worse" thats what you said. Anyways, i think having an extra radar CA is a big advantage (not because they are more powerful than non-radar ships) yes. Just like having an extra DD. But this doesnt mean radar ships/DDs are broken or game breaking. If we had a mirrorad MM for those, both teams would have equal terms and games would be more fun/balanced.

 

Btw. Just to let you know: no matter how many "remove radar" threads you start, radar is not gonna be removed from the game. So its pointless to discuss this further more. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


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

Yes thats what i have said multiple times but you probably ignored it. They have huge impact on game. And thats what they should have. Its an aircraft carrier. Ofc its gonna have big impact on game. And carry potential sure. But its the only class which also depends on enemys gameplay. If they all stay together, its the only class which loses its strike potential. All WG needs to do about CVs is fixing buggy UI. Thats it.

 

You have one and only goal and which is removing radar. And removing radar is not the solution. For some reason you cant understand it. We had that situation. I remember teams with 8 DDs without radar. I remember everyone camping and DDs torping from max range. (You were complaining about radar making games campy. This is how it was without radar) So dont tell me fairytales here. Lower BBs survivablity. Raise the citadels of BBs to yamato levels. So misplays can get punished. This would make them less noobfriendly and lower the BB population.

 

I was talking about non-CV game ofc. Do you prefer an extra BB or a CA over a DD? Wow... you should have such high experience level...

 

I dont care who told this. I read it on your post. "Ships without radar that are just worse" thats what you said. Anyways, i think having an extra radar CA is a big advantage (not because they are more powerful than non-radar ships) yes. Just like having an extra DD. But this doesnt mean radar ships/DDs are broken or game breaking. If we had a mirrorad MM for those, both teams would have equal terms and games would be more fun/balanced.

 

Btw. Just to let you know: no matter how many "remove radar" threads you start, radar is not gonna be removed from the game. So its pointless to discuss this further more. 

You're arguing with a brick wall. The brick wall will not understand you. It does not want to understand you. It will stick to his own, no matter what you say/write. There're a certain type of people that dont accept the oppinion of others, or reason with it. The just enjoy to troll, or they just dont know any better, living in their own world, with their own logic (different from everyones else's). The only thing that you, me and anyone else do by replying is fueling the fire. 

Share this post


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

And thats what they should have. Its an aircraft carrier. Ofc its gonna have big impact on game.

Realism is suddenly an argument that fits? Or do you also want battleships to follow the same reasoning?

 

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

But its the only class which also depends on enemys gameplay.

You're saying it doesn't matter what the enemy does; my torpedoes are going to hit anyway? Learned something new there.

 

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

You were complaining about radar making games campy. This is how it was without radar

I played the game before radar. It was less campy. It was more enjoyable. Pull another fairytale out of your arse.

 

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Do you prefer an extra BB or a CA over a DD?

If I already have three DDs? Yes.

 

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Btw. Just to let you know: no matter how many "remove radar" threads you start, radar is not gonna be removed from the game. So its pointless to discuss this further more. 

Can you count how many such threads I've started?

 

2 hours ago, OTECa1 said:

You're arguing with a brick wall. The brick wall will not understand you. It does not want to understand you. It will stick to his own, no matter what you say/write. There're a certain type of people that dont accept the oppinion of others, or reason with it. The just enjoy to troll, or they just dont know any better, living in their own world, with their own logic (different from everyones else's). The only thing that you, me and anyone else do by replying is fueling the fire. 

Why are you describing yourself? I mean, if you're talking about understanding you're clearly not talking about me. I understand perfectly what you say. I just think it's bullcrap. Is that somehow hard for you to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
3,207 posts
18,692 battles
9 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

Realism is suddenly an argument that fits? Or do you also want battleships to follow the same reasoning?

 

You're saying it doesn't matter what the enemy does; my torpedoes are going to hit anyway? Learned something new there.

 

I played the game before radar. It was less campy. It was more enjoyable. Pull another fairytale out of your arse.

 

If I already have three DDs? Yes.

 

Can you count how many such threads I've started?

 

Believe me if it was realistic, CVs wouldnt care about anything. What we have in game is not even close to real life.

 

Omg you are really good about misunderstanding/twisting. Or you re just a ... nevermind. Do you lose your strike capablity depending on what enemy does? No you dont. You can strike any enemy no matter what they are doing. Yes no matter what they do you might hit them. But if enemy sticks together with couple of heavy aa ships, cv has nothing to do under such heavy aa. And it loses its strike capablity.

 

Oh yeah sure you did. Your nonsense comments prove that... :Smile_facepalm: 

 

What if enemy had 4?i would surely want have an other extra DD to make it even.

 

Not sure i have to check when i get back home but at least 2 i can remember. Full with your imagination about the game being less campy without radars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,127 posts
7,085 battles
3 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Raise the citadels of BBs to yamato levels. So misplays can get punished. This would make them less noobfriendly and lower the BB population.

Totally agree

 

47 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

I played the game before radar. It was less campy. It was more enjoyable. Pull another fairytale out of your arse.

Again, you miss the point. If you think radar induces the camping meta then I disagree.

I don't know how much time you complained in this thread about people not reading or understanding you, but clearly you're the same.

I described in another post how I was able to use radar to push and support my fellow DD mates. How is this a camping situation?

It can unlock contested caps, force enemy DDs to move and open a flank for your allies. 

Camping meta comes from the BB overpopulation, and removing radar (which will again never happen, deal with it) is not the right solution. I support changing BBs stats directly, in a way ghostbuster described above.

Radar is a wonderful tool and removing it would make the DDs absurdely strong. I'm glad that it will never happen, and most of the people I play with think like me.

 

26kynq.jpg

  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

Believe me if it was realistic, CVs wouldnt care about anything. What we have in game is not even close to real life.

So don't bring that up as an argument. There's no reason CVs should be more powerful than any other ship. That just makes it unbalanced.

 

5 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Omg you are really good about misunderstanding/twisting. Or you re just a ... nevermind. Do you lose your strike capablity depending on what enemy does? No you dont. You can strike any enemy no matter what they are doing. Yes no matter what they do you might hit them. But if enemy sticks together with couple of heavy aa ships, cv has nothing to do under such heavy aa. And it loses its strike capablity.

Just do like you advice DDs to do with radar: Just deal with it. Go elsewhere.

 

By "depends on enemy gameplay", you really mean just a specific case where you can apply your argument and nothing else fits, just because that's how you define it? That's not really a convincing argument. If the enemy shoots at my guns, I lose shooting capability.

 

But all you're doing is showing how CVs are broken. Either they can strike, and the enemy is doomed, or they can't, and they're useless. All or nothing. Game needs less of that.

 

5 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

What if enemy had 4?i would surely want have an other extra DD to make it even.

So if you, in a DD, head off to a different cap from the rest of the team to see if you can steal that cap, you'd rather have the backup of another DD than from a CA if you meet two DDs?

 

5 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Not sure i have to check when i get back home but at least 2 i can remember. Full with your imagination about the game being less campy without radars.

Pretty sure I wasn't the one starting those. I've not even started two threads total. If that's your memory, why should I trust anything you say about how the game used to be?

 

4 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

I described in another post how I was able to use radar to push and support my fellow DD mates. How is this a camping situation?

It can unlock contested caps, force enemy DDs to move and open a flank for your allies.

Can work like that, sure. Does it usually do that? Not really. It mostly locks caps no one wants to go nearby, since there's a radar cruiser hiding behind an island. Creating no-go zones creates camping behaviour. Besides, you can use just about any tool for the same purpose, so being able to use radar like that isn't exactly a convincing argument. All it does is show that radar isn't completely useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,480 posts
15,671 battles
On 11/03/2018 at 3:19 PM, AnotherDuck said:

It depends entirely on what those new smoke time would be. It could be shorter, but not significantly shorter. It only has to be enough to counter for radar being removed.

You misunderstand:

- some ships are balanced around sitting in smoke and shooting from smoke and thus shortening their smoke duration even by 5 seconds is nerfing the ships (UK CL and US DD to some degree, depending on your playstyle),

- some ships are balanced around contesting smokes and sitting in smokes for cap contesting, shortening smoke removes their specialty (KM DD),

 

And both those ships need a counter for when they are sitting in smoke, that counter is called radar. If you remove radar you'll need to rebalance the smoke, but for the beforementioned shipclasses this is not just a rebalance but a complete rework of the class. Because atm they NEED smoke to function.

 

Other ships, such as most IJN DDs and RU DDs don't really need smoke. They only need it to gtfo if they misplayed. So for those ships you can easily drop smoke duration to 20 sec. 

On 11/03/2018 at 3:19 PM, AnotherDuck said:

What makes high tier DDs so much better than lower tier DDs relative to all other ships that CAs need an additional tool to fight them?

For US/PA ones the ability to stealth torp, for IJN ones the longer ranges at which they can torp: making it possible to torp from outside radar range-safe option, or get closer in radar range for better effect-risky option. This risk vs reward option will be completely gone if you remove radar. 

For RU ones, I hope you don't want to tell me kebab and udaloi aren't stronger vs cruisers than say podvoisky?

The German ones gain access to their trademark hydro and gain a lot of torp power as well.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

Not sure i have to check when i get back home but at least 2 i can remember. Full with your imagination about the game being less campy without radars.

Without counthing this one:

Radar and Tier V & VI

Radar spoting

Radar is OP (Not vs smoke)

Radar Through Islands - Fix it please...

 

and the scenario is always the same.

Share this post


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

You misunderstand:

- some ships are balanced around sitting in smoke and shooting from smoke and thus shortening their smoke duration even by 5 seconds is nerfing the ships (UK CL and US DD to some degree, depending on your playstyle),

- some ships are balanced around contesting smokes and sitting in smokes for cap contesting, shortening smoke removes their specialty (KM DD),

No, I understand that. The point was to nerf them. I think making their smoke a little weaker is better than having it be very powerful most of the time and completely useless if radar. That's the all-or-nothing approach WG seems to like that doesn't work too well for game balance. I find it makes it more similar to WoT in ways it doesn't need to, kind of like their old artillery.

 

The RN CLs usually sit a little bit farther away, so they're not as affected to begin with.

 

31 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

For RU ones, I hope you don't want to tell me kebab and udaloi aren't stronger vs cruisers than say podvoisky?

Some of the Russian ones are a bit special, and not very destroyerlike. They're also not affected by radar to nearly the same extent.

 

13 minutes ago, OTECa1 said:

Without counthing this one:

Radar and Tier V & VI

Radar spoting

Radar is OP (Not vs smoke)

Radar Through Islands - Fix it please...

So, which of those did I start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,480 posts
15,671 battles
41 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

No, I understand that. The point was to nerf them. I think making their smoke a little weaker is better than having it be very powerful most of the time and completely useless if radar. That's the all-or-nothing approach WG seems to like that doesn't work too well for game balance. I find it makes it more similar to WoT in ways it doesn't need to, kind of like their old artillery.

What's the most important skill for those ships?

It is knowing how to position your smoke (and how to get to such a position undetected). If you position your smoke well (good exit strategy, good angling and moving of ship in relation to BB/incoming torps, position of enemy radar ships) you are extremely powerfull. The only way to get people in well positioned smoke screens is radar or a ship closing the distance. The latter being the dangerous option because that ship will have to expose itself to torpedoes from the ship in smoke and other ships.

 

If you then only slightly reduce the smoke duration and remove radar these ships become to powerfull. Why? Because you remove a lot of the skillfactor needed to position yourself well. Everyone can sit in a smokescreen and dakka dakka if there is no threat to be detected in it.

 

41 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

The RN CLs usually sit a little bit farther away, so they're not as affected to begin with.

RN CL sitting back, not backing up his DDs up close is a bad RN CL anyways. So yes, they are very much affected if played well.

 

IJN DDs on the other hand don't NEED smoke. Yugumo fe is way better with torpedo reload. They cna do great without smoke, RN CL can't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
3,207 posts
18,692 battles
8 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

So don't bring that up as an argument. There's no reason CVs should be more powerful than any other ship. That just makes it unbalanced.

 

Just do like you advice DDs to do with radar: Just deal with it. Go elsewhere.

 

By "depends on enemy gameplay", you really mean just a specific case where you can apply your argument and nothing else fits, just because that's how you define it? That's not really a convincing argument. If the enemy shoots at my guns, I lose shooting capability.

 

But all you're doing is showing how CVs are broken. Either they can strike, and the enemy is doomed, or they can't, and they're useless. All or nothing. Game needs less of that.

 

So if you, in a DD, head off to a different cap from the rest of the team to see if you can steal that cap, you'd rather have the backup of another DD than from a CA if you meet two DDs?

 

 

Well they deal with it. Its you who has been asking for making life easier for DDs. DDs should learn how to deal with it yeah problem solved.

 

Ok let me explain it that way. Losing strike capability: imagine after your every strike you have one less torpedo to lauch.

Nope they can spot and wait for the opportunity. So they are not useless. Same with dds. If there is a radar ship and you know it didnt use radar yet, keep it spotted for your team to shoot or bait the radar and create an oppotunity.

 

If im in a DD i dont head off to a different cap than rest of my team... :Smile_facepalm:

but generally if i run into 2 dds in a cap, yes i would like to have an other dd with me. Besides extra dd means spotting at different part of the map. In domination for examle. In a cap one team will have more DDs than the other. And this is a massive advantage.

 

 

Share this post


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

If you then only slightly reduce the smoke duration and remove radar these ships become to powerfull. Why? Because you remove a lot of the skillfactor needed to position yourself well. Everyone can sit in a smokescreen and dakka dakka if there is no threat to be detected in it.

If they're too powerful if you only reduce it slightly, then you reduce it a little more. Problem with radar is that there's an all-or-nothing "skillfactor". If there's no radar, you don't need any skill for that. If there is any radar, you can't do it at all.

 

5 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

DDs should learn how to deal with it yeah problem solved.

And, the average player being the average player, they deal with it by camping.

 

5 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

If there is a radar ship and you know it didnt use radar yet, keep it spotted for your team to shoot or bait the radar and create an oppotunity.

How do you spot and/or shoot a ship behind an island?

 

5 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

If im in a DD i dont head off to a different cap than rest of my team... :Smile_facepalm:

but generally if i run into 2 dds in a cap, yes i would like to have an other dd with me. Besides extra dd means spotting at different part of the map. In domination for examle. In a cap one team will have more DDs than the other. And this is a massive advantage.

I've stolen a lot of caps by going more or less solo to a cap. Capping wins games. Besides, it's also a likely situation in the late game, when there are far fewer ships alive.

 

So, I meet two DDs, we spot each other. If they shoot, I can smoke up, which means they're still spotted by my CA, and we can shoot them down. If they smoke up, my CA can just pop radar and we can shoot them down. If it's an enemy German DD, I keep my distance, so if he wants to use hydro, he has to get close, which means the CA can easily shoot him down even if I'm not shooting. If I have the spotting advantage, I don't even need to smoke. If they have the spotting advantage, they still need to reveal themselves by shooting. Or one smoke and the other spots, which means I can just smoke anyway. One way or another it's going to end up with a shooting match between those four ships. And one CA and one DD can shoot down two DDs.

 

Yes, you can spot in a different part of the map if you have more DDs. Can you support that part of the map? If your team splits up to cover that part, and the enemy team doesn't, who do you think will win if the battle where the enemy is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
Players
3,207 posts
18,692 battles
10 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

And, the average player being the average player, they deal with it by camping.

 

How do you spot and/or shoot a ship behind an island?

 

I've stolen a lot of caps by going more or less solo to a cap. Capping wins games. Besides, it's also a likely situation in the late game, when there are far fewer ships alive.

 

So, I meet two DDs, we spot each other. If they shoot, I can smoke up, which means they're still spotted by my CA, and we can shoot them down. If they smoke up, my CA can just pop radar and we can shoot them down. If it's an enemy German DD, I keep my distance, so if he wants to use hydro, he has to get close, which means the CA can easily shoot him down even if I'm not shooting. If I have the spotting advantage, I don't even need to smoke. If they have the spotting advantage, they still need to reveal themselves by shooting. Or one smoke and the other spots, which means I can just smoke anyway. One way or another it's going to end up with a shooting match between those four ships. And one CA and one DD can shoot down two DDs.

 

Yes, you can spot in a different part of the map if you have more DDs. Can you support that part of the map? If your team splits up to cover that part, and the enemy team doesn't, who do you think will win if the battle where the enemy is?

oh that camping nonsense again. like i said before. potatoes are gonna camp no matter what. so radar doesnt have anything to do with camping meta.

 

it cant shoot you too. then just bait the radar and do what ever you want to do. in one or 2 radars you dont die in a DD anyway.

 

oh really?capping wins games? of course it wins games.:Smile_facepalm: and who is gonna cap mostlikely? might be DDs? yes, and what happens if one team has more dds than the other? oh yes they are gonna have advantage on capping aswell... in late game you might go to an other cap than your team but at the start of game its quetionable.  and im sorry but im not gonna discuss this with someone who still doesnt know the advantages of having an extra DD after 5k battles...   keep repeating your words about radar like a very talkative bird.:cap_like:

Share this post


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

it cant shoot you too.

I'm not sure if you know this, but there are other ships in the game.

 

2 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

and im sorry but im not gonna discuss this with someone who still doesnt know the advantages of having an extra DD after 5k battles...

Well, you don't seem to know the advantage of having an extra battleship or cruiser after twice the number of battles, so I'm not sure you're in any position to say anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×