Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
abyssofthetriffid

Dd vs bb.

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,560 posts
3,791 battles

Has something changed with bb ap vs dd as i keep getting deleted instantly now bow on vs battleships firing ap shells?

Before it was simply a gamble vs range jesus but now it seems insta death.Any new meta involved here?

 

I have a huge gripe to wg please...................

 

 

Please please please wg remove radar from tier 5 battles its getting silly now.

Change radar when in tier 5 battles to the power of hydro for that tier 5 battle thats fair.

Tier 5 dd and getting spotted by radar is simply pathetic game wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,110
[WOLF5]
Members
2,733 posts
3,130 battles

Nope, that's always been like that. When a BB AP round hits a nose on DD, it's going to travel the whole length of the ship, thus having time to arm and do full pen damage. You're better off broadside, so you only eat overpens. However, you're not the only one who's noticed, and WG has said that they're looking at this, and do want to prevent BB pens on DDs.

 

Also, there are only a few ships with radar in T5. Atlanta, Belfast, and Indianapolis. Belfast is OP, that's well known. Atlanta is a nasty DD counter, that's her job. But she has massive weaknesses in other areas that offset that. (I have an ATL). Indianapolis is also a nasty DD hunter, but again, is weaker against other ships. That's it for radar at T7. I'm guess you're getting detected by hydro, which has the same indicator as radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,820
Members
5,575 posts
7,121 battles

It depends on how long it's been since you've played. 

 

There was an update back in the day that changed BB AP.

 

That change is still and ongoing discussion to this day.

Edited by Wulfgarn
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,589
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,481 posts
10,399 battles
36 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

Nope, that's always been like that. When a BB AP round hits a nose on DD, it's going to travel the whole length of the ship, thus having time to arm and do full pen damage. You're better off broadside, so you only eat overpens. However, you're not the only one who's noticed, and WG has said that they're looking at this, and do want to prevent BB pens on DDs.

 

Also, there are only a few ships with radar in T5. Atlanta, Belfast, and Indianapolis. Belfast is OP, that's well known. Atlanta is a nasty DD counter, that's her job. But she has massive weaknesses in other areas that offset that. (I have an ATL). Indianapolis is also a nasty DD hunter, but again, is weaker against other ships. That's it for radar at T7. I'm guess you're getting detected by hydro, which has the same indicator as radar.

 

Belfast really isn't that OP but I disagree, Radar in general as a consumable at all tiers either A: needs a slight range nerf or B: needs to be more LoS. The 7-near 10 I think some get is a bit much, especially if it goes through a mountain which, last I checked Radar works by rebounding signals off what it hits and a mountain taller than most buildings and my ship, thicker than a DD may be long, and solid rock should stop it going through, especially if he's hiding behind the mountain. And if my memory on how radar especially of that era is wrong, than for balance sake it should not bloody well be "press radar button behind cover to troll"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,720 posts
6,524 battles
1 hour ago, WanderingGhost said:

 

Belfast really isn't that OP but I disagree, Radar in general as a consumable at all tiers either A: needs a slight range nerf or B: needs to be more LoS. The 7-near 10 I think some get is a bit much, especially if it goes through a mountain which, last I checked Radar works by rebounding signals off what it hits and a mountain taller than most buildings and my ship, thicker than a DD may be long, and solid rock should stop it going through, especially if he's hiding behind the mountain. And if my memory on how radar especially of that era is wrong, than for balance sake it should not bloody well be "press radar button behind cover to troll"

Many on both sides agree with radar needing to be LoS based. Unfortunately, it's impossible in the current game engine as the radar consumable(and likely hydro as well) simply extend the proximity spotting range from 2-3km out to the range given on the consumable. Proximity spotting works through solid land, so unfortunately so will radar and hydro.

Edited by GhostSwordsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[HYDRA]
Members
136 posts
1,169 battles

All they would need to do to fix this would be to swap from contact to inertial fuses which IIRC should be on all wwii ships, after all 14 mm of armor is not going to slow down a 16 inch shell very much. It would also make french cruiser armor much less of a black hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,555
Members
1,831 posts
6,013 battles
3 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

 

Belfast really isn't that OP but I disagree, Radar in general as a consumable at all tiers either A: needs a slight range nerf or B: needs to be more LoS. The 7-near 10 I think some get is a bit much, especially if it goes through a mountain which, last I checked Radar works by rebounding signals off what it hits and a mountain taller than most buildings and my ship, thicker than a DD may be long, and solid rock should stop it going through, especially if he's hiding behind the mountain. And if my memory on how radar especially of that era is wrong, than for balance sake it should not bloody well be "press radar button behind cover to troll"

while radar bounces off what it hits, this is in RL. WG is not using regular WW2 vintage radar frequencies,  they are using the well known radar death rays. mountains, islands, mountainous islands, and even continents are permeable to radar death rays. i'm sorry to be the first one to share this insight, I am not making it up, I just observe it in game, and report.

consider the following (this is IN GAME, not in RL):

mountains are permeable to radar death rays in game, therefore, radar death rays can pass right thru them. however, if they were to pass thru your ship, they would insta delete the captain, and then you would no longer be able to enter battle, as you would have no captain. so, they bounce off your ship. and everybody else's, which is weird considering WG won't get rid of friendly fire. butt eye digress.

also, you are thinking RL in terms of the size of your ship. the islands are fantasy islands, they are everywhere. not real, you just think they are. but they are in fact tiny little pieces of flotsam, garbage, tsunami offal, washed away in floating on the currents. then WG made them look like islands, for pretty. in fact, the ships ARE real, and the radar signature is larger than the islands. even the huge mountainous ones. that are everywhere in the ocean.

well, the old motto applies, you can't have your mountains everywhere and death ray radar too. or can you?

I want to help, and in this case, it appears your thinking is badly skewed by RL fake news. this is WoWs where reality is flexible, and history is hysterical. you're welcome. :o)

Edited by not_acceptable
popcorn now features free discord, but you will not be forced to use it. just give us all your oil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,589
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,481 posts
10,399 battles
17 hours ago, not_acceptable said:

I want to help, and in this case, it appears your thinking is badly skewed by RL fake news. this is WoWs where reality is flexible, and history is hysterical. you're welcome. :o)

 

Yes, it is so badly skewed that I suggest and back a German CV line that likely requires 1 made up ship and does require taking a paper project plane to reality, Italian, French, and RU CV lines that may require some major stretches of history, Why I don't balk at the German tier X or some of the UK ships, or several others that people cry are paper or fakes, why I've suggested a Doolittle raid Hornet even though reality those bombers would never land on that ship, the USS Shangri-La based off her testing of Navy PBJ's, B-25 Navy designation, and P-51 Mustang's, and am insane enough to suggest and look to balance bringing back tier X jet fighters (fighters only) that will require some stretches of imagination on IJN. It's why I don't balk about crazy things like fixed hitpoints and DD's and some cruisers basically being drift cars, battleships that turn on quarters, and torpedoes that rearm in 30 seconds mid fight.

 

The reason I brought it up is yes - I will often turn to reality for inspiration and see where it can be applied to balance because this game has a historical base. Some historical things are OP, fix them, some are UP, buff them, some just don't work in game. Radar is broken, and if they had the ability to fix it as such, being more like reality would actually be the most amenable way to fix the issue, they don't have their range nerfed, DD's and other ships aren't spotted by radar through a mountain. And you WOULD NOT believe the number of times I have seen people post in defense of radar that actual real life radar, of that era, goes through a damned mountain or any other solid object. I am all for reasonable changes to reality, otherwise CV's would stomp everything, the A6M would thrash the Wildcat between pilots and a better actual dogfighter, Bismarck would easily take triple the pounding it does now and still float and DD's would be death traps. Radar in game is something that we could use just a little more reality on so to try and appease both sides and not having screaming that Radar was nerfed too much and that premiums were nerfed (when in fact it's the consumable).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,684 posts
7,879 battles
On 9/23/2017 at 11:10 AM, AJTP89 said:

Nope, that's always been like that. When a BB AP round hits a nose on DD, it's going to travel the whole length of the ship, thus having time to arm and do full pen damage. You're better off broadside, so you only eat overpens. However, you're not the only one who's noticed, and WG has said that they're looking at this, and do want to prevent BB pens on DDs.

 

Also, there are only a few ships with radar in T5. Atlanta, Belfast, and Indianapolis. Belfast is OP, that's well known. Atlanta is a nasty DD counter, that's her job. But she has massive weaknesses in other areas that offset that. (I have an ATL). Indianapolis is also a nasty DD hunter, but again, is weaker against other ships. That's it for radar at T7. I'm guess you're getting detected by hydro, which has the same indicator as radar.

I agree with this, except for the bit where bold was added. Moving in a straight line towards or away from a BB is a bad idea but broadside lets you take more hits, so even the overpens add up faster. The best of both worlds is to wiggle and never present a single facing toward the enemy, since that will both increase your chances of taking overpens, and decrease the total number of hits you take.

 

AP has always kinda worked against DDs (overpens deal 10% of a shells listed damage, while pens deal 33%, so an overpen is still a significant amount of damage), and many BB players have been advocating firing whatever happens to be loaded at any DD in range instead of waiting for a reload. All that changed is that the whiners who never knew how to cope with DDs started listening finally after two freaking years.

 

HE is still the most dangerous thing to get hit with. Using USN tier VIII 16” as an example (because they are pretty typical, and I know them well), an AP penetration will do 4367 and an overpen will do 1310. An HE penetration will do 5700, and ignores angling, so it always hits for that much. You can put those numbers up against the HP pool of any particular DD, but it generally works out that 3-4 HE hits will sink a DD (which might or might not happen depending on range and how aggressively the DD dodges), but it would take 1-2 more AP penetrations to put the damage past the DDs HP pool. If you aren’t moving in straight lines, then a BB will almost never get more than a single pen against a DD (it happens, but that’s really just RNG telling you to go back to port and pick another ship). There is no scenario where AP is more effective against a DD than HE, since a DD can’t ever take full damage from AP.

 

Even from the front it’s more difficult to get 33% pens on a DD than to get citadels (100% damage) on a cruiser, so that’s really not what the BB captain is trying for, and its very rare (but still happens) to get more than one pen out of a volley. The advantage to AP is that it is probably what the BB had loaded.

 

In all cases, you and the BB skipper are playing games of chance. Nothing stops RNG from blessing the BB with a full salvo of 9 hits, or from getting 5 penetrations on a DD that is wiggling 10 km away — it’s always a possibility. By the same token, every BB occasionally shoots a perfectly aimed volley at a stationary target and watches the shells form a circle around it. In both cases, you are just increasing or decreasing chances. Firing AP usually means getting one extra volley for the BB, so they have another roll of the dice where something good (for them) might happen. For a DD, moving at angles and zig-zagging, makes them the most difficult and smallest target, so fewer shells are likely to land and the BB is less likely to get one of those lucky bow-through-stern shots.

 

The only thing that changed is that BB players used to get discouraged because they weren’t firing AP often enough for RNG to start showing them the good results, so they were always waiting the 30 seconds to reload HE instead of firing what they had loaded.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
335
[CZS]
Members
842 posts
7,951 battles
On 9/23/2017 at 10:14 AM, GhostSwordsman said:

Many on both sides agree with radar needing to be LoS based. Unfortunately, it's impossible in the current game engine as the radar consumable(and likely hydro as well) simply extend the proximity spotting range from 2-3km out to the range given on the consumable. Proximity spotting works through solid land, so unfortunately so will radar and hydro.

 

This is WG's line, and it's absolute [edited].  It's a result of horrible coding and an institutional refusal to fix consequential bugs.

The current treatment of radar is such because it was a slap-dash "implementation" on WG's part.  The codebase absolutely supports putting in radar, but you'd have to spend a LITTLE development time to properly implement the feature.  It's neither impossible nor particularly hard. What "radar" is right now is a result of WG's refusal to spend even that little effort to properly implement the feature.

Claiming something is "impossible" means your design won't accomodate the concept. The game engine ABSOLUTELY will accommodate proper radar, as the existing Line Of Sight feature demonstrates. The treatment of radar as part of the minimum detection distance (itself another completely broken and poorly implemented "feature") is a BUG.

Don't give WG a pass on this. It's sloppy coding and institutional arrogance that continues to this day as to why this hasn't been properly done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,720 posts
6,524 battles
7 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

 

This is WG's line, and it's absolute [edited].  It's a result of horrible coding and an institutional refusal to fix consequential bugs.

The current treatment of radar is such because it was a slap-dash "implementation" on WG's part.  The codebase absolutely supports putting in radar, but you'd have to spend a LITTLE development time to properly implement the feature.  It's neither impossible nor particularly hard. What "radar" is right now is a result of WG's refusal to spend even that little effort to properly implement the feature.

Claiming something is "impossible" means your design won't accomodate the concept. The game engine ABSOLUTELY will accommodate proper radar, as the existing Line Of Sight feature demonstrates. The treatment of radar as part of the minimum detection distance (itself another completely broken and poorly implemented "feature") is a BUG.

Don't give WG a pass on this. It's sloppy coding and institutional arrogance that continues to this day as to why this hasn't been properly done.

Radar was intended to interact with smoke, and smoke acts like an island, with a specific radius and infinite height. The least costly way to implement it was to simply copy hydro's function, which simply increases the proximity spotting range for the ship with the consumable, and give it a larger range and shorter duration. (On that note, of you want to be upset over lazy programming, then take issue with hydro as its been in the game far longer than radar)

Otherwise, they would have to code it so radar reveals ships in and through smoke but not islands. Bit I they did that, then they'd have to fix hydro too.

Look, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I can't know how simple/easy or difficult it is to program for this game, so I have to take the companies word at face value. I'm simply parroting what I heard straight from the devs themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
659
[13TH]
Members
4,896 posts
8,484 battles
On 9/23/2017 at 8:10 AM, AJTP89 said:

Nope, that's always been like that. When a BB AP round hits a nose on DD, it's going to travel the whole length of the ship, thus having time to arm and do full pen damage. You're better off broadside, so you only eat overpens. However, you're not the only one who's noticed, and WG has said that they're looking at this, and do want to prevent BB pens on DDs.

 

Also, there are only a few ships with radar in T5. Atlanta, Belfast, and Indianapolis. Belfast is OP, that's well known. Atlanta is a nasty DD counter, that's her job. But she has massive weaknesses in other areas that offset that. (I have an ATL). Indianapolis is also a nasty DD hunter, but again, is weaker against other ships. That's it for radar at T7. I'm guess you're getting detected by hydro, which has the same indicator as radar.

My Belfast radar is 25 seconds at 8.49 k... I call it chuckles for good reason

Is the the Belfast OP,? its one of those ships that because it has Radar,Hydro,smoke, decent quick loading guns, good rudder shift Making it more flexibile in its play than many other Vll Cruisers,

fun boat

the radar fix so it can't see though large pieces of rock is according to Wows not an easy fix and costly because of the way it's designed, it is doable just not high on the fix it list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
335
[CZS]
Members
842 posts
7,951 battles
38 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

Radar was intended to interact with smoke, and smoke acts like an island, with a specific radius and infinite height. The least costly way to implement it was to simply copy hydro's function, which simply increases the proximity spotting range for the ship with the consumable, and give it a larger range and shorter duration. (On that note, of you want to be upset over lazy programming, then take issue with hydro as its been in the game far longer than radar)

Otherwise, they would have to code it so radar reveals ships in and through smoke but not islands. Bit I they did that, then they'd have to fix hydro too.

Look, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I can't know how simple/easy or difficult it is to program for this game, so I have to take the companies word at face value. I'm simply parroting what I heard straight from the devs themselves.

The issue boils down to lazy coding and refusal to spend the time to properly implement a feature.

The PROPER way to implement radar is use the L-O-S code, where a ship with radar active sets a flag that the LOS code checks: if yes, then ignore smoke for LOS, if no, then smoke blocks LOS. It's literally a single boolean flag and one more check in an IF...THEN statement to do right. If it's any harder than that, then WG's devs are so incompetent that it borders on criminal.

Instead, they were sloppy and used the min detection distance code, which does nothing more than check distance to ship. And, yes, Hydro is also broken here.

My point is that this is NOT something that's hard to fix. It's NOT excuseable for WG to parrot out that line, and the fact that Hydro is broken doesn't make radar being broken OK, either.  A broken feature is a broken feature, and the devs saying that it's Broken By Design is NEVER OK.

Shrugging our shoulders and saying "Well WG said so..." isn't OK, and we shouldn't just pass it off as such in the forums. Detection in this game is a very longstanding piece of crap, and the fact that it's a piece of crap isn't something we should ever let slide, or not continue to try to hold WG's feet to the fire to fix. There's no justifiable reason for not fixing it, especially since the method for the fix is already available in the codebase, and it's merely WG's POLICY not to fix.

WG saying it's "Hard" or "not able to be done with the design" is them literally lying to you. I don't even have to see the codebase to know this, and any professional programmer would say the same thing.  When a company LIES to its userbase, that's never a good thing, and something we shouldn't put up with.

Edited by EAnybody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
659
[13TH]
Members
4,896 posts
8,484 battles
1 hour ago, EAnybody said:

The issue boils down to lazy coding and refusal to spend the time to properly implement a feature.

The PROPER way to implement radar is use the L-O-S code, where a ship with radar active sets a flag that the LOS code checks: if yes, then ignore smoke for LOS, if no, then smoke blocks LOS. It's literally a single boolean flag and one more check in an IF...THEN statement to do right. If it's any harder than that, then WG's devs are so incompetent that it borders on criminal.

Instead, they were sloppy and used the min detection distance code, which does nothing more than check distance to ship. And, yes, Hydro is also broken here.

My point is that this is NOT something that's hard to fix. It's NOT excuseable for WG to parrot out that line, and the fact that Hydro is broken doesn't make radar being broken OK, either.  A broken feature is a broken feature, and the devs saying that it's Broken By Design is NEVER OK.

Shrugging our shoulders and saying "Well WG said so..." isn't OK, and we shouldn't just pass it off as such in the forums. Detection in this game is a very longstanding piece of crap, and the fact that it's a piece of crap isn't something we should ever let slide, or not continue to try to hold WG's feet to the fire to fix. There's no justifiable reason for not fixing it, especially since the method for the fix is already available in the codebase, and it's merely WG's POLICY not to fix.

WG saying it's "Hard" or "not able to be done with the design" is them literally lying to you. I don't even have to see the codebase to know this, and any professional programmer would say the same thing.  When a company LIES to its userbase, that's never a good thing, and something we shouldn't put up with.

Personally I'm fine with smoke Hydro and radar meta,I use on certain ships either one two or all three consumables and also face ships with same capabilities, if one is having problems with them than take a very close look at your playstyle and adjust accordingly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
335
[CZS]
Members
842 posts
7,951 battles
Just now, HMCS_Devilfish said:

Personally I'm fine with smoke Hydro and radar meta,I use on certain ships either one two or all three consumables and also face ships with same capabilities, if one is having problems with them than take a very close look at your playstyle and adjust accordingly 

It's not about the meta. It's about how the game mechanics are implemented.  The (fundamentally broken) detection mechanics - which include hydro and radar misfeatures - seriously affects gameplay in a negative manner. Being able to deal with these misfeatures in no way lessens the urgency or requirement that the misfeature itself be fixed.  In particular, these issues radically disadvantage DDs, and radically advantage BBs.  Papering over these problems using ship nerf and buffs ignores the gaping chest wound in favor of putting a Band-Aid on a hangnail.

In Software Engineer terms, the current implementation of Radar is a P2 bug, and the Hydro and Minimum Detection Distance issues are P3.   Balance issues are P4 at best, P5 in most cases. Fixing cosmetic stuff is P6.  (A P1 would be any bug that prevents the game from even running in the first place). Ignoring a P2 bug for no good reason displays pretty bad leadership and certainly unprofessionalism on the part of WG as a company.  Shipping software that has P2 bugs is never OK, and only rarely justifiable.  Having P2 bugs open for over 2 years is, under no circumstances, professional or acceptable or justifiable.

The point upthread is that yes explaining how radar and such current work is necessary for new people to play the game properly, since they don't behave in a logical manner.  But we should NEVER give WG a pass on the idea that these issues exist, and demand that they be fixed, and that any "Too Hard, Won't Fix" reply from WG is simply unacceptable, because it's a lie.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
659
[13TH]
Members
4,896 posts
8,484 battles
6 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

It's not about the meta. It's about how the game mechanics are implemented.  The (fundamentally broken) detection mechanics - which include hydro and radar misfeatures - seriously affects gameplay in a negative manner. Being able to deal with these misfeatures in no way lessens the urgency or requirement that the misfeature itself be fixed.  In particular, these issues radically disadvantage DDs, and radically advantage BBs.  Papering over these problems using ship nerf and buffs ignores the gaping chest wound in favor of putting a Band-Aid on a hangnail.

In Software Engineer terms, the current implementation of Radar is a P2 bug, and the Hydro and Minimum Detection Distance issues are P3.   Balance issues are P4 at best, P5 in most cases. Fixing cosmetic stuff is P6.  (A P1 would be any bug that prevents the game from even running in the first place). Ignoring a P2 bug for no good reason displays pretty bad leadership and certainly unprofessionalism on the part of WG as a company.  Shipping software that has P2 bugs is never OK, and only rarely justifiable.  Having P2 bugs open for over 2 years is, under no circumstances, professional or acceptable or justifiable.

The point upthread is that yes explaining how radar and such current work is necessary for new people to play the game properly, since they don't behave in a logical manner.  But we should NEVER give WG a pass on the idea that these issues exist, and demand that they be fixed, and that any "Too Hard, Won't Fix" reply from WG is simply unacceptable, because it's a lie.

 

 

When you say fundamentally broken this may be true from your point of View,certinly not mine

this game is one big balancing act were every shot , turn of the ship, hits in smoke out of smoke ... everything...as you well know is called data that is used to balance out ships and game mechanics, it is to your point an ongoing change but keeping us players happy translates to $$$ for Wows, if I thought that Wows was dishonest and blatantly lied and that's not been my experience...than I'd uninstall the game

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
335
[CZS]
Members
842 posts
7,951 battles
19 minutes ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

When you say fundamentally broken this may be true from your point of View,certinly not mine

this game is one big balancing act were every shot , turn of the ship, hits in smoke out of smoke ... everything...as you well know is called data that is used to balance out ships and game mechanics, it is to your point an ongoing change but keeping us players happy translates to $$$ for Wows, if I thought that Wows was dishonest and blatantly lied and that's not been my experience...than I'd uninstall the game

 

 

How on God's green earth is radar that can see through solid islands not Broken? It's sophistry to claim otherwise, and how can you claim they're not lying through their teeth when they claim they can't fix it, when it can be cleanly demonstrated that such a fix is quite easy to make?

And they're NOT keeping us players happy, by a long shot, and that's definitely costing them money in the long run, as it both discourages new players from spending any money on premium stuff (as they find out how broken the existing game is, there's significantly less incentive to invest money in it), and many of the older players have simply stopped paying money at all, for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
659
[13TH]
Members
4,896 posts
8,484 battles
44 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

 

How on God's green earth is radar that can see through solid islands not Broken? It's sophistry to claim otherwise, and how can you claim they're not lying through their teeth when they claim they can't fix it, when it can be cleanly demonstrated that such a fix is quite easy to make?

And they're NOT keeping us players happy, by a long shot, and that's definitely costing them money in the long run, as it both discourages new players from spending any money on premium stuff (as they find out how broken the existing game is, there's significantly less incentive to invest money in it), and many of the older players have simply stopped paying money at all, for the same reason.

Radar that can see through rocks is not broken because .. its a game and that's the way it is, Ive actually have never been in a position to light up a ship unseen behind an Island in my Belfast and do not have that thought when playing 

they didn't say they couldn't fix radar they said it's not an easy fix,

as far as Wows not keeping us players happy, there definitely not keeping you happy and I kinda know that feeling having been involved in the big Cruiser nerf when they removed AFT from Cruisers with guns bigger than 139mm

I actually got a warning because of my rant, my games played dropped by halve

I did get over it and enjoy the game again .. anyway the squeaky wheal gets the grease as they say ... good luck with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
341 posts
1,931 battles
On 9/23/2017 at 11:10 AM, AJTP89 said:

Also, there are only a few ships with radar in T5. Atlanta, Belfast, and Indianapolis. Belfast is OP, that's well known. Atlanta is a nasty DD counter, that's her job. But she has massive weaknesses in other areas that offset that. (I have an ATL). Indianapolis is also a nasty DD hunter, but again, is weaker against other ships. That's it for radar at T7. I'm guess you're getting detected by hydro, which has the same indicator as radar.

Do you mean ships a T5 would encounter? Cause those 3 are T7 so I'm guessing that's what you meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,206
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,880 posts
17,491 battles
On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 9:04 AM, WanderingGhost said:

Belfast really isn't that OP

Belfast is TOTALLY OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,206
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,880 posts
17,491 battles
On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 10:42 PM, HMCS_Devilfish said:

Radar that can see through rocks is not broken because .. its a game and that's the way it is

So does that mean that cruisers not having AFT is OK because that is just the way it is? Or did you get that ban for something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,589
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,481 posts
10,399 battles
56 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Belfast is TOTALLY OP.

 

Okay, tell me how it's OP? Because it is no different from it's sister Edinburgh save for 2 things - It loses torps/stealth torp for HE rounds, and has Radar, which replaces it's UK super repair. Fiji and Edi have the same gun stats, better dispersion. it has a slight secondary range on Fiji, less secondary guns to Edi. Slightly better AA than Fiji, worse than Edi. Slightly better surface detection on Fiji, a whole 2/10's of a km, while being spotted by aircraft nearly a km before Fiji. And Fiji has a better rudder shift and turning circle. It doesn't get the forgiveness of it get's spotted and can repair the damage other UK cruisers get. And yeah it gets Radar, but that's a consumable issue that Radar is broken as hell. It's just as easy to better compare it to a USN DD, except bigger, has a citadel, and a worse smoke screen for keeping location hidden while firing. I can't tell you how many Belfast's or any UK cruiser I've deleted while they were in smoke because they were stationary or not moving much.

 

Only 2 things can make it OP compared to other UK tech tree ships - Radar, which is an issue that the consumable is broken and needs to be fixed by nerfing it somehow, and setting fires, again, an issue not with the ship but that fires are idiotically effective at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,028 posts
10,734 battles
3 hours ago, Umikami said:

Belfast is TOTALLY OP.

Hey

I would disagree.  The Belfast can be be quite easily overcome if you know what your doing, even with it toys, she is a very squishy ship, one that doesn't accelerate very quickly when stopped in smoke and can be torped in that smoke.  Since she doesn't have torps, rush the smoke and force her run, then delete her but do it in a way that forces it to run in the direction you want with your guns ready.  She used to be considered OP, before people figured out how to counter it.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,206
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,880 posts
17,491 battles
3 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

Okay, tell me how it's OP?

Because the combo of smoke, radar, and hydro is OP; why did you buy the damn thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×