Jump to content

Slimeball91

Members
  • Content count

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1886

Community Reputation

139 Valued poster

About Slimeball91

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

425 profile views
  1. The radar/hydro learning curve...Lol

    The first thing you need to adapt to the play style at mid tier is knowledge of the game mechanics. As everyone has pointed out you need to learn what ships have radar. The good news is you can learn that in steps. At tier 6 you only need to know what ships have radar at tiers 7&8. Next learn the range, then duration. The thing to do in the beginning is to write down that info and check team lineups at the start of each match and adjust you play style accordingly. Here's a list of all the radar ships, https://imgur.com/J31OwO9 A thank you to Wulfgarn for the list. Good luck.
  2. Let me continue to offer an opposing view point for the sake of discussion. I think your position is based on the premise that being evasive is the right course of action at all times, and thus PT is limited in value. I think that logic is flawed. At times the best course of action is not to be evasive. This is especially true with DDs because have the speed and maneuverability to react to unexpected threats without preemptive evasive action. I'm not suggesting that reaction is always the best way to go. I'm not saying you're wrong. This is for discussion, after all, I don't run PT on my DDs.
  3. I have PM on all my DDs, and have forgone PT. Like you I always assume everyone is aiming at me. At one point when respec was free I even tried switching to PT and found I was preoccupied with the number on the screen. That caused my to play more conservatively. I decided to switch back pretty quickly. Now, I'm pretty sure I bailed out on PT too quickly. It was sort of like conformation bias. I thought, "see, I knew everyone was aiming at!" The reality is I didn't take the time to learn how to make the most out of the information PT gives me in my DDs. When not using PT I was just going by "feel" when things were getting too hot, and/or assuming everyone was aiming at me. The problem with that is twofold. First, by the time you start feeling the heat it could be too late to bail. The second, is you are operating on information that will be incorrect most of the time by assuming everyone is aiming at you. Now, I'm not trying to make a case for PT over PM. Unfortunately, its not so easy to compare the two for your particular play style. They are apples and oranges. There is a learning curve to get the most out of the information PT is giving you at any given time in the game. The upside is information is the key to making the right decision. With PM there is no learning curve but it is only working for you when you are taking damage. Making it worse, is that we don't really know how well it works, or how often it is saving our butts. Has anyone thoroughly tested PM? It would nice to see the results a ship with PM, and one without in testing.
  4. I would add that BBs also are held back be the fear of long range torps to some degree. Last night I posted some of my thoughts on ways to address some the most common issues players have, long range torps, cruiser survivability, stealthy BBs and radar. All of these things contribute to the passive play at higher tiers. It's funny because I would want to look into nerfing, or getting rid of radar along with nerfing DDs torp range, and even maybe DD concealment. I think the long range of high tier torps are what many people object to. It sucks when you are 15-20 km away, nowhere near an enemy DD and a wall of skill shows up. By the time those torps show up at that range the DD is in a completely place on the map from where it fired the torps. That's what is frustrating. Some of my thoughts for rebalancing DDs. The goal with my proposed changes are to allow DDs to play the objectives more aggressively, and to encourage them to engage each other more. The ultimate goal is to help reduce some the passive game play in higher tiers. -Remove/nerf radar. I think I'd try to change radar to fire control radar rather than remove it outright. The ships that have radar now will get fire control radar instead, the duration and cooldown would be unchanged. However, fire control radar will be a narrow field of view, say 20 degrees, from your point of aim/turrets. Whatever you're aiming at, in a 20 degree band, for your entire gun range, is what is lit by your fire control radar. Only you can see what you radar is detecting, the rest of your team only sees these ships on the mini map. The purpose is to allow DDs to play the objectives more aggressively. The current version of radar makes more DDs passive. Passive DDs only exacerbates the already passive meta at higher tiers. My theory is radar actually hurts more than it helps the meta. -Cruiser survivability buffs. I'm not sure the best way to go about this change. One idea is to reduce the citadel size. There are other ideas that could work better. With increased survivability we might have to think about reducing something like their HE fire chance so their damage doesn't go through the roof. The goal here is to encourage people to play cruisers in this new meta. -Nerf DD torpedo range. If DDs have more space to operate with radar nerfed, the long range of high tier DD torps would likely need to be reduced. Examples would be Shima would have max torp range of 14km, Gearing 12km torps. Other DDs would have similar reduced ranges. The exact numbers would be up for debate. -Gun bloom changes. I'd like make some changes to gun bloom. 15 seconds for DDs, 20 for cruisers, and 30 for BBs. The goal is twofold, encourage DDs to use their guns, prevent BBs from going dark between shots. I happen to think if we reduce DD gun bloom they will shoot more, and be detected more during the game than they are now. Without radar DD will be able to play the objective more aggressive, and engaging each other more often. Reduced gun bloom will encourage DDs to target other DDs. BBs on the other should have their gun bloom increased. The reasoning behind I don't think its good to be able to go dark between shots when continuously firing your guns. As it is now I BBs can stay at distance fire off shots, go dark between shots, and if things start to heat up they can easily stay dark and relocate. I think this allows ships to snipe more easily. Now the enemy can return fire for an additional ten seconds. With DDs able to have more room to maneuver they will be better able to spot enemy BBs. This, and a longer bloom time should help discourage sniping. My thoughts here are to address some of the most common complaints, radar, cruiser survivability, and walls of skill. I'd love to have a test server to try some of these idea out.
  5. How do you counter radar in a DD?

    It's funny because I would want to look into nerfing, or getting rid of radar along with nerfing DDs torp range, and even maybe DD concealment. I think the long range of high tier torps are what many people object to. It sucks when you are 15-20 km away, nowhere near an enemy DD and a wall of skill shows up. By the time those torps show up at that range the DD is in a completely place on the map from where it fired the torps. That's what is frustrating. Some of my thoughts for rebalancing DDs. The goal with my proposed changes are to allow DDs to play the objectives more aggressively, and to encourage them to engage each other more. The ultimate goal is to help reduce some the passive game play in higher tiers. -Remove/nerf radar. I think I'd try to change radar to fire control radar rather than remove it outright. The ships that have radar now will get fire control radar instead, the duration and cooldown would be unchanged. However, fire control radar will be a narrow field of view, say 20 degrees, from your point of aim/turrets. Whatever you're aiming at, in a 20 degree band, for your entire gun range, is what is lit by your fire control radar. Only you can see what you radar is detecting, the rest of your team only sees these ships on the mini map. The purpose is to allow DDs to play the objectives more aggressively. The current version of radar makes more DDs passive. Passive DDs only exacerbates the already passive meta at higher tiers. My theory is radar actually hurts more than it helps the meta. -Cruiser survivability buffs. I'm not sure the best way to go about this change. One idea is to reduce the citadel size. There are other ideas that could work better. With increased survivability we might have to think about reducing something like their HE fire chance so their damage doesn't go through the roof. The goal here is to encourage people to play cruisers in this new meta. -Nerf DD torpedo range. If DDs have more space to operate with radar nerfed, the long range of high tier DD torps would likely need to be reduced. Examples would be Shima would have max torp range of 14km, Gearing 12km torps. Other DDs would have similar reduced ranges. The exact numbers would be up for debate. -Gun bloom changes. I'd like make some changes to gun bloom. 15 seconds for DDs, 20 for cruisers, and 30 for BBs. The goal is twofold, encourage DDs to use their guns, prevent BBs from going dark between shots. I happen to think if we reduce DD gun bloom they will shoot more, and be detected more during the game than they are now. Without radar DD will be able to play the objective more aggressive, and engaging each other more often. Reduced gun bloom will encourage DDs to target other DDs. BBs on the other should have their gun bloom increased. The reasoning behind I don't think its good to be able to go dark between shots when continuously firing your guns. As it is now I BBs can stay at distance fire off shots, go dark between shots, and if things start to heat up they can easily stay dark and relocate. I think this allows ships to snipe more easily. Now the enemy can return fire for an additional ten seconds. With DDs able to have more room to maneuver they will be better able to spot enemy BBs. This, and a longer bloom time should help discourage sniping. My thoughts here are to address some of the most common complaints, radar, cruiser survivability, and walls of skill. I'd love to have a test server to try some of these idea out.
  6. How do you counter radar in a DD?

    Let me show you that I can have discussion in good faith. I didn't mean to suggest that DWT and AP bombs were a light touch. I've spoken out about my dislike for these many times. If you go back to my first post in this thread you'll see that I don't like the idea of mechanics for punishing ships/classes that are problematic for WG. I'd prefer a more elegant solution. To clarify my thoughts on WG's handling of the "DD and BB problems". I believe the approach this time around is more conservative for BBs. With the DD problem WG nerfed torps pretty hard, then there was the plethora of anti-concealment mechanics added to mainly target DDs. There were also nerfs that weren't directly aimed at DDs, but they got hit pretty hard by, the removal of OWSF/gun bloom, and to a lesser extent the smoke nerf. That's an attack from multiple fronts, direct and indirect nerfs to DDs, and direct and indirect buffs to other ships to target DDs. That's a lot for a class to endure. This time around for BBs WG is being more careful. They haven't directly nerfed BBs at all. The new mechanics to target BBs are designed to limit the overall impact on the game moving forward. For example, AP bombs only punish certain ships, and are rare because CVs are rare. DWT have only been added to one line of DDs. We know WG is going to expand these mechanics to more ships, but they have been rolled out pretty carefully so far. Also, AP bombs and DWT come with major drawbacks to their use (your targets are limited). There were no such drawbacks to the anti-DD mechanics. AP bombs and DWT can be reeled in if need be, or when BBs aren't a problematic class anymore. You can't do that with the changes WG made in their attack on DDs. Those mechanics are too deeply ingrained into the game (and into players) to ever go back. That was the lesson WG learned.
  7. How do you counter radar in a DD?

    Let's take a look at these two statements and decide if you are even trying to be objective in your discussion. The first is your DD on DD experience. I know it's possible to kill another DD without taking damage. However, the only way for that to be "not uncommon" is if you very carefully choose your engagements (like only attacking low HP DDs). Of course you add in the stipulation of not being in range of radar. There's nothing wrong with choosing your engagements carefully, in fact its smart. Moving on to the your thought on a cruiser dying before it can go dark again while on the DD hunt. That is certainly possible when you choose your engagements poorly (like charging out into enemy gun fire in your cruiser while trying to kill a DD). So much for that carefully choosing of your engagements that was smart just a moment ago... You can't pick the rare, ideal engagement for the DD on DD scenario, and then choose the foolish one for the cruiser and expect anyone to believe you are presenting a fair argument. I don't think you are even trying to have a discussion in good faith. I think you're so dead set on "winning" an argument that you'll say anything. It would be far worse if you actually believe in these cherry picked arguments. I'm not saying I'm right, and you're wrong. I'm saying its fine if you disagree with me, just be honest. Why don't you try something like, "I think radar is a good mechanic, but you're right cruisers are more capable than people give them credit for." or "Yes, cruisers can hunt DDs, but its rare that circumstances allow them to do so with an acceptable risk, so we need radar." I think this is what you really believe, you've just lost sight of it in the heat of the moment. Or maybe you're an egotistical jerk that always has to be right no matter what. Its up to you which one of those personas you want to put forward in the future.
  8. How do you counter radar in a DD?

    I think this is a biased view at best, disingenuous at worst. Sadly, you aren't alone in this distorted view. You like many other players have become accustomed to the brokenness of radar and can't imagine that crutch being nerfed or removed. More importantly, you have become addicted to the current game imbalance (and WG's bias towards DDs). As I posted already, you can't put the genie back in the bottle so I don't think we''ll likely to ever see a nerf, or removal of radar. That said, I have little doubt that WG views its treatment of DDs as a hard learned lesson on how not to balance the game. We see proof of that with the far more conservative approach they are taking with the current BB overpopulation problem. They aren't giving any ships a no skill button to push, that has no counter, to solve the BBs problems.
  9. How do you counter radar in a DD?

    You wouldn't go to the trouble to chase off a DD if it wasn't doing something important, like capping, spotting, flanking and so on. So, yeah, its a win to chase off a DD in a cruiser. Sorry, but you wouldn't hunt a DD in a cruiser if you were going to be in a position to get pummeled, in fact, you wouldn't do that if you were in a gunboat DD either. So your point is moot. You're crazy if you believe that hunting a DD in another DD is even remotely safe. Its safe if you choose your engagements carefully, that's true no matter what ship type you are in. If you are in a DD on DD knife fight you are going to be damage, possibly a lot of damage. Its not uncommon to lose 25%-50% of your HP in a knife fight you win. That's the risk. Cruisers aren't willing to give up 50% of their HP to kill a DD, not unless they had no choice. If that was the game meta cruisers would kill a lot more DDs.
  10. How do you counter radar in a DD?

    First, I was replying to the notion that DDs are better at killing other DDs than cruisers, not hunting. But lets go ahead and talk about hunting. Of course its relevant that cruisers have more armor and firepower. You are right, you can't shoot what you can't see (the same applies to DD on DD engagements). Its true that a DD has a better chance to avoid an engagement with a hunting cruiser than another DD. When that happens the cruiser won by driving off the DD. Again, we agree, the DD does have a chance to fire off torps, assuming he's in a position to do so (but that's a pretty big assumption). If you are hunting a DD in a cruiser you'll pop your hydro and the torps won't be a meaningful threat. Of course, the incoming torps now tell you where the DD is making it easier to hunt it. If you don't have hydro, or its on cool down, you won't choose to hunt a DD. I'm not going to continue to got over your points one by one because they are all predicated on two things, that the DD being hunted is concealed or its location is unknown, and that a gunboat DD doesn't face the same threats as the cruiser when hunting another DD. Despite your assertion that a DD player has to be brain dead to get spotted DDs are detected far more often then most people believe. All the anti-concealment mechanics reveal DDs all the time, the enemy DDs do too. Even without exposing themselves DDs make there presence known by firing torps, smoking up, entering a cap, and when you're spotted and you don't see any ships you know there is a DD out there (and its usually not that hard to guess where it might be). And lets not forget that DDs give their position away every time they fire their guns. Once the DD is detected it has lost its main defense, cruisers, BBs and other DDs now have the advantage. If you factor in radar, then cruisers have a massive advantage. I understand your argument that a cruiser can expose its self to torps, and even of more dangerous, enemy fire, when hunting a DD. The thing is the gunboat DD faces the same threat when on the hunt. Where the cruiser is exposed longer due to the potential of being detected first, the gunboat DD is super fragile, and doesn't have the HP to endure fire from other ships, not to mention it can be gunned down by the intended victim as well. As I said in my earlier post, the risk is the same, the attitude is different. The risks in knife fighting DDs are extremely high, cruisers generally aren't willing to take on the risk of DD hunting because the meta for cruisers is a more cautious play style. This is all about attitude, not capability.
  11. How do you counter radar in a DD?

    I think that is an overly simplified explanation. Radar wasn't given to cruisers to give a fair balance to the cruiser/DD dynamic. It was added for the same the reason as AP bombs and DWT, to address meta that WG finds problematic. DDs were public enemy number one for WG not long after launch. The war against torps and DD concealment began. We had hydro, radar, double fighter/spotter planes, RPF and torp nerfs. All of this was added to adjust meta. Its seems WG is having a bit of a change of heart of late and we are seeing (a slightly) more favorable attitude towards DDs. This change of heart is of course to help correct the BB overpopulation problem WG has. Unfortunately, WG's solution is to kill the problematic ships with mechanics like radar, and now AP bombs/DWT. These punishing mechanics are permanent solutions to temporary problems. I'd prefer more elegant solutions because once the genie is out of the bottle you can't put him back in. Players have become accustomed to these mechanics, and a large part of the game is balanced around them now. Take a look at radar, DD players have adapted their game, now radar no longer has the intended effect. So WG was been expanding radar in the game. Its a never ending cycle that will continue until the game is broken. If you don't believe me that this kind of stuff breaks games, consider this, WG wanted to give RN BBs radar for crying out loud. No. Cruisers have the armor, HP and firepower advantage, they are far better equipped to kill DDs than gunboat DDs. The difference is that it is considered an acceptable risk for a gunboat DD to engage another DD, its not for the cruiser. The risk is the exact same for both the gunboat DD and the cruiser, you have to risk life and limb for the kill. Cruisers aren't willing to take on that risk, and why should they when there is a button to push that gives the cruiser a non-counterable advantage.
  12. Sure, a full AA spec in certain DDs will work. The problem is that it's not practical to AA spec in DDs (that's true for most ships in the game too). AA spec'ed ships are mostly just a novelty since there are so few CV games. DD players need every captain skill they can get for survival and concealment, that doesn't leave much for AA. Concealment is the primary survival tool of DDs. There are already a ton of things that counter DD concealment spotter/fighter planers, double spotter planes, RPF, hydro, radar and other DDs. Higher tiers DDs are precariously balanced with the proliferation of radar and hydro, when you add CVs to the mix the balance is thrown off. I think its fair to be unhappy about about a class that is unbalanced be another.
  13. I think the imbalanced MM is to encourage steamrolls/quick matches.
  14. badges need rework yes or no?

    I have no interest in the patches at all. I don't care about "earning" them, or even seeing them as decoration. I don't want to see them when I'm sunk, and more importantly, I don't want a badge displayed when I sink someone. If WG is going to continue with this in your face mentality for the game, them I'm not interested in sticking around because that's not the kind of thing I am willing to support.
  15. You're getting to the heart of the issue. The skill gap is a symptom, not the disease. CV play is a completely different game, and that game play style doesn't appeal to many in the player base. Few CV games and no one wants to bother with AA spec'ed builds or developing the skills/tactics to counter CVs. Adding to the problem is that CVs can radically change the game balance that is played the other 80%-90% of the time. That is the problem. There just isn't the appeal for the rest of the player base to except them into the game to play or to play against.
×