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

Radared through mountains

66 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

348
[H-W-C]
Members
1,262 posts
3,355 battles

Yes.

"working as intended" is the official response because at the moment radar and hydro simply extend the assured detection range, so having them not work through land would take forever to code.

Edited by warpath_33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,817
[SALVO]
Members
17,106 posts
17,770 battles
17 minutes ago, broats said:

Has WG admitted that this is a concession for the sake of gameplay? Radar is line of sight.....

No, it's a limitation of the game engine.  Making radar work only on line of sight would require checking the LoS for every enemy ship within range of the radaring ship before deciding whether that enemy ship can be "lit up".

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,231
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,684 posts
9,083 battles
19 minutes ago, Crucis said:

No, it's a limitation of the game engine.  Making radar work only on line of sight would require checking the LoS for every enemy ship within range of the radaring ship before deciding whether that enemy ship can be "lit up".

 

This, can you imagine the lag when multiple people fire up radar or even hydro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
54 minutes ago, Crucis said:

No, it's a limitation of the game engine.  Making radar work only on line of sight would require checking the LoS for every enemy ship within range of the radaring ship before deciding whether that enemy ship can be "lit up".

 

It already does that for the normal LOS code.

This is NOT a game engine limitation. This is a hack that WG put in place when it first rolled out Radar and Hydro, and hasn't decided that they care enough to do it properly, which is NOT that difficult. 

Please quit making excuses for WG - this is purely a decision by their management that they don't care enough about their customers to implement it properly with modest effort.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
355
[D12]
[D12]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,084 posts
8,994 battles
36 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

It already does that for the normal LOS code.

This is NOT a game engine limitation. This is a hack that WG put in place when it first rolled out Radar and Hydro, and hasn't decided that they care enough to do it properly, which is NOT that difficult. 

Please quit making excuses for WG - this is purely a decision by their management that they don't care enough about their customers to implement it properly with modest effort.

Write the fix?  Wait you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
904 posts
4,261 battles

LOL engine limitation...

I knew people who were writing sound reflection code for AI to react to for the mod for the 1st half life, the engine that was released in 90s...

WG are either lazy or inept then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[WAR-S]
Members
132 posts
3,715 battles

While we're at it we'll take away DDs being able to go cloak at sub 6km ranges, you know, historically and technologically accurate and all... /s

It's a game, and the mechanics are working as they are for the sake of the game, not technical accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
603 posts
7,111 battles

hmm....

which answer do you want for this question?

A. WG too lazy to write new code

B. WG doesn't care

C. Radar working as intented

D. all of the above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
137
[SPTR]
Members
1,762 posts
848 battles
41 minutes ago, SkyRail said:

hmm....

which answer do you want for this question?

A. WG too lazy to write new code

B. WG doesn't care

C. Radar working as intented

D. all of the above

A and B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
On 12/26/2017 at 9:43 AM, Nachoo31 said:

Write the fix?  Wait you can't.

Actually, I easily could, if given access to the codebase.  It's almost certainly written in either C or C++, and given that the proper framework for implementing Radar RIGHT is already there, there's no way it's more than an week's worth of work, QA included.

Sad that WG don't give a [bleep] about this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
436
[CAST]
Members
1,428 posts
5,978 battles
4 hours ago, EAnybody said:

Actually, I easily could, if given access to the codebase.  It's almost certainly written in either C or C++, and given that the proper framework for implementing Radar RIGHT is already there, there's no way it's more than an week's worth of work, QA included.

Sad that WG don't give a [bleep] about this. 

I do appreciate the irony of using a free forum (provided by WarGaming) used for the discussion of a free game (provided by WarGaming) which has been regularly updated/upgraded for the more than 2 years since its release (by WarGaming) to complain about how little WarGaming cares about its customer base.

This is clearly a case of WarGaming weighing the pros and cons and deciding that allowing radar/sonar to see through land masses is better for overall game balance.  You can't tell me that in the time it's taken you to rack up nearly 5,500 battles you don't remember all the whining about invisible destroyers and overpowered torpedoes.  Allowing destroyers to be seen temporarily through land masses brings that power balance closer to equilibrium without them rolling out yet another nerf to torpedoes or to the destroyers themselves (or yet another buff to secondaries).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
30 minutes ago, Harv72b said:

I do appreciate the irony of using a free forum (provided by WarGaming) used for the discussion of a free game (provided by WarGaming) which has been regularly updated/upgraded for the more than 2 years since its release (by WarGaming) to complain about how little WarGaming cares about its customer base.

This is clearly a case of WarGaming weighing the pros and cons and deciding that allowing radar/sonar to see through land masses is better for overall game balance.  You can't tell me that in the time it's taken you to rack up nearly 5,500 battles you don't remember all the whining about invisible destroyers and overpowered torpedoes.  Allowing destroyers to be seen temporarily through land masses brings that power balance closer to equilibrium without them rolling out yet another nerf to torpedoes or to the destroyers themselves (or yet another buff to secondaries).

 

Are you smelling what you're shovelling there?

You might learn that "caring about it's userbase" has nothing to do with "keeping your userbase not so pissed off that they leave".  Comcast is another company that does this, and WG seems to be following in their tracks. 

There have been exactly 2 Upgrades (defined as adding new features) to the game since it left beta:  Radar and DeepWater Torpedoes.  The latter is pretty much considered a bad idea (or at least, a completely unnecessary one) by most of the experienced player base - it's a classic case of an Answer to a Question No One Is Asking.  The former was implemented so poorly 2 years ago that every single new player complains about how it works, and the general consensus of the older players is that it's a Wart, not a Feature, and we just have to live with it because WG won't fix.  The rest of the "ugprades" are either completely cosmetic in nature (i.e. new ships) or tweaks of existing features that don't apply to everyone (e.g. the 1-at-a-time torpedoes of RN ships). 

WG doesn't appear to do balance at all well, and Radar is a great example of that, because of the way it was implemented. 

DDs are by far the most underpowered line in the entire game, not to mention the most difficult to play at anything beyond mid-tier. Radar is yet another "feature" which WG thinks is necessary to placate their perceived (and that's Perceived, not Actual) majority userbase of BB players.  It's a failed one, too, because since it's not available until at least T7, it doesn't fix the problem of "overpowered" DDs and torpedoes at the lower tiers, where the crying about invisible torpedoes/DDs is most strong.  The current meta is (and has been for almost 2 years) HEAVILY tilted in favor of BBs. 

And, no, since I didn't start out playing BBs, and instead worked my way up the CA and DD lines, I've never once whined about either DDs or torpedoes, because I know exactly how they work, and how bad you have to play for a DD player to hit you with large numbers of them.

Radar encourages piss-poor play. It's that simple. It's a crutch for players not taking situational awareness seriously, and as a method to bail themselves out of a jam of their own making. All the while penalizing good play on the part of their opponents.  That's not Balance, and never was. It's about catering to people who don't want to take the time to learn the game.   In other words, WG prioritizes new users over old ones, under the theory that they can generate more revenue from a new player than an old one.

 

Edited by EAnybody
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
436
[CAST]
Members
1,428 posts
5,978 battles
8 hours ago, EAnybody said:

 

There have been exactly 2 Upgrades (defined as adding new features) to the game since it left beta:  Radar and DeepWater Torpedoes. 

DDs are by far the most underpowered line in the entire game, not to mention the most difficult to play at anything beyond mid-tier. Radar is yet another "feature" which WG thinks is necessary to placate their perceived (and that's Perceived, not Actual) majority userbase of BB players.  It's a failed one, too, because since it's not available until at least T7, it doesn't fix the problem of "overpowered" DDs and torpedoes at the lower tiers, where the crying about invisible torpedoes/DDs is most strong.  The current meta is (and has been for almost 2 years) HEAVILY tilted in favor of BBs.

 

Yes, only Radar and Deep Water Torpedoes have been added to the game since release.  Oh, and more new ships than I'd care to add up (not counting premiums).  And missions.  And campaigns.  And ranked play.  And clans.  And containers.  And radio position finding.  And voice chat.  And a ton of UI improvements both in port and in game.  Do I have to go on?  I can...

I'm not going to delve into your stats and thus I'm speaking purely in general terms here, not specifically about you: DDs are only "underpowered" when driven by poor captains.  With halfway competent play, the only other ship type which can affect a game's outcome as significantly as a destroyer would be a high tier carrier.  If anything, battleships are the class which is (still) underpowered, although this is also affected by overall poor play by a large segment of that captain base.  You might be thinking of the very early days, shortly after public release, when destroyers seemed ridiculously overpowered, largely because so few people had discovered the effect of changing one's course and speed from time to time.  In the current game iteration we still sail the fastest, smallest, most maneuverable, stealthiest, hardest-hitting ships in the game.  The difference is that because of balancing changes (to include radar), now we actually have to be relatively good at the game in order to realize the full potential of these ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
904 posts
4,261 battles
1 hour ago, Harv72b said:

I'm speaking purely in general terms here, not specifically about you: DDs are only "underpowered" when driven by poor captains. 

Look up meaning of "general", because you can go look at general server stats and find out that all dds in general do much less average damage than any other ship type, have lowest survivability, and require above average players to perform on par with BBs. Seems balanced.

I want to see you do 60k average damage in dds at high tiers, then maybe your balance statements would have some merit.

Missions, campaigns, new ships, and UI stuff are not gameplay features. The only other gameplay feature that I might add to radar and DWT is cyclone. Well maybe an epicenter game mode too, but it is hardly different from assault and does not affect the way non dd ships play anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
436
[CAST]
Members
1,428 posts
5,978 battles
5 hours ago, Vaitmana said:

Look up meaning of "general", because you can go look at general server stats and find out that all dds in general do much less average damage than any other ship type, have lowest survivability, and require above average players to perform on par with BBs. Seems balanced.

I want to see you do 60k average damage in dds at high tiers, then maybe your balance statements would have some merit.

Missions, campaigns, new ships, and UI stuff are not gameplay features. The only other gameplay feature that I might add to radar and DWT is cyclone. Well maybe an epicenter game mode too, but it is hardly different from assault and does not affect the way non dd ships play anyway.

Compare damage done in high tier DDs as a percentage of their own health pool vs. BBs under the same circumstances.  You're also ignoring aspects of the game in which destroyers excel while BBs struggle, such as capping.  These activities go just as far toward winning as simple damage does; more so depending on where the damage was done.  This was the whole point of the WTR figure which, while not nearly perfect, does a much better job of portraying the overall effect a player (or ship) has in a game.  I mean, yeah--if all you're interested in is maxing out your damage totals, then you play battleships.  Personally, I'm bored silly when I play a BB.

Not sure where that 60k figure came from anyway.  There is 1 t8 BB which averages that much (Monarch) and only 2 at t9 (Lion and Missouri).  If you're only talking about t10, then sure...but the Khabarovsk and Yeuyang also average over 60k damage per battle.  One thing I can't help but notice is that when you flip it around, destroyers dominate among the top win rates in t8-t10, however.

EDIT: Also, where in the world are you getting "features" from???  Aside from treating it as an entirely subjective term, my initial comment was that WarGaming has done numerous upgrades and updates over the life of the game.  Everything I've mentioned regarding this tangent, and a whole lot more, falls squarely into one of those categories.

Edited by Harv72b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
904 posts
4,261 battles

I was talking about T10, because by then, hopefully, majority of players know the game very well and every BB and CA have above 60k average damage.

Yeuyang does not have enough sample size and only people with loads of free XP or time got her and Khabarovsk is not even a DD in a sense, does not play like one.

Also, if capping is the only thing dds are good at - why even play them? It does not bring any money, nor fun, besides only some dds are good at capping. If a dd that is meant to counter BBs (not cap), like IJN have less average damage than a single T8 BBs worth of HP pool, clearly they are not pulling their weight.

In simple terms, DDs are harder to play, perform worse than any other ship in things that matter (sinking ships), have the most counters in this game, and have much less payout in the end.

Edited by Vaitmana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
436
[CAST]
Members
1,428 posts
5,978 battles
2 hours ago, Vaitmana said:

In simple terms, DDs are harder to play, perform worse than any other ship in things that matter (sinking ships), have the most counters in this game, and have much less payout in the end.

This is our disconnect.  Winning matters, so I prefer to play the ships where I can have the biggest impact on how the team does.  If all I wanted to do was sink stuff with the least amount of challenge, I'd play co-op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,488 posts
8,988 battles

The suggestion that WG wanted Radar to see through islands and that it is working as intended is false on the face of it.  When Radar came out, they specifically stated that it was not supposed to and that they were planning on fixing that at some point.  As warpath mentioned, they designed it (and hydro) as an extension of the assured acquisition system, the unintended consequence of which is that proximity spotting (assured acquisition) ignores line of sight.

Thus, you can argue that you believe they are being lazy or what-have-you for not fixing it.  That point is debatable considering all the changes they have made (e.g., elimination of open water stealth firing, adding visibility from firing from smoke, etc.), but it is absolutely untrue that they intended this from the start and that they had no intention of fixing it.  They specifically stated otherwise.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[TSPC]
Members
178 posts
6,529 battles

Radar through islands imo isn't really that big of a deal - reasoning:

1. If a ship is radaring you through an island chances are that ship can't shoot at you

2. If their team can obliterate you in that position, and there is a radar ready to be used, you probably shouldn't be there - at least for long 

3. You should not be charging into a cap after entering it especially if you don't know where the enemy ships are - have a plan to get out / out of line of fire fast if radared

4. If you are being hydro'd - you probably shouldn't have been there in the first place - too close basically
Also, it is not uncommon to do not very much dmg and still be top of your team in a DD because caps + DD kills [xp is done by %dmg]

Not to mention that not allowing ships to radar through islands would seriously undermine their influence especially at higher levels of play- since most radar ships are rather squishy [at least can't be focused] and therefore depend upon island cover to get close enough

There might be some caps where this might be ridiculous but that's largely a problem with map design

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,265
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,278 battles
On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 8:54 AM, warpath_33 said:

"working as intended" is the official response because at the moment radar and hydro simply extend the assured detection range, so having them not work through land would take forever to code.

Like not being able to SEE through mountains took forever to code? Nonsense, and another lame excuse.

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 9:10 AM, Crucis said:

Making radar work only on line of sight would require checking the LoS for every enemy ship within range of the radaring ship before deciding whether that enemy ship can be "lit up".

Seriously? Does the game engine poll every ship every time a player moves his point of view to see whether he should be able to see that ship or not because it's behind an island? NO! Crucis, I think this reasoning is a lame excuse for WOW to keep an OP consumable which limits a DD's effectiveness, and not an actual reason that is giving them issues.

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 4:39 PM, SkyRail said:

A. WG too lazy to write new code

B. WG doesn't care

C. Radar working as intented

D. all of the above

None of the above; they do care and they WANT it this way, they just don't want players to know the real reasons why because it would cause a crap storm amongst the DD population.

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:06 AM, EAnybody said:

Please quit making excuses for WGright now.)

Trust me when I say this: @Crucis is NOT making excuses for WOW.

(The mere thought of that makes me take my hands away from the keyboard because I'm laughing so very, very hard.)

Crucis is the guy who argues with Mods, Admins, Pigeons, Et Al, over every aspect of the game he has issues with; he is NOT the guy to defend them.

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:55 AM, 901234 said:

1. If a ship is radaring you through an island chances are that ship can't shoot at you

No, just the rest of his team who are hiding in smoke.

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:55 AM, 901234 said:

Not to mention that not allowing ships to radar through islands would seriously undermine their influence especially at higher levels of play- since most radar ships are rather squishy [at least can't be focused] and therefore depend upon island cover to get close enough

So rather than make those ships competitive, they gave them a cheat?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
603 posts
7,111 battles
7 hours ago, 901234 said:

Radar through islands imo isn't really that big of a deal - reasoning:

1. If a ship is radaring you through an island chances are that ship can't shoot at you

2. If their team can obliterate you in that position, and there is a radar ready to be used, you probably shouldn't be there - at least for long 

3. You should not be charging into a cap after entering it especially if you don't know where the enemy ships are - have a plan to get out / out of line of fire fast if radared

4. If you are being hydro'd - you probably shouldn't have been there in the first place - too close basically
Also, it is not uncommon to do not very much dmg and still be top of your team in a DD because caps + DD kills [xp is done by %dmg]

Not to mention that not allowing ships to radar through islands would seriously undermine their influence especially at higher levels of play- since most radar ships are rather squishy [at least can't be focused] and therefore depend upon island cover to get close enough

There might be some caps where this might be ridiculous but that's largely a problem with map design

 

it is not a big deal for noob team. however.

 

1. Radar through island allow ships such as New Orleans, Baltimore, Des Moines to park right next to a island to keep radaring a cap for his team. If he placed himself right, he can even shoot over island without getting spotted

making radar a very low risk high reward consumable

 

2. As DD, you don't need to stay at a place for so long to get 50% of your health taken away. especially when a BB shell pen can do 4k damage, and a overpen + normal pen (I called it double pen) shot can do as much as 43% damage of a BB shell

it is not uncommon to see BB land a 6k/7k shot on DD.

 

There are ways to improve the radar system in game imo. how about pulse spotting if a ship is light out by radar behind island ? meaning the radar will light up the ship for a few sec, then follow by another few sec of non spotting, than light up the ship for a few sec again until the radar time run out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,817
[SALVO]
Members
17,106 posts
17,770 battles
1 hour ago, Umikami said:

Like not being able to SEE through mountains took forever to code? Nonsense, and another lame excuse.

Seriously? Does the game engine poll every ship every time a player moves his point of view to see whether he should be able to see that ship or not because it's behind an island? NO! Crucis, I think this reasoning is a lame excuse for WOW to keep an OP consumable which limits a DD's effrectiveness, and not an actual reason that is giving them issues.

None of the above; they do care and they WANT it this way, they just don't want players to know the real reasons why because it would cause a crap storm amongst the DD population.

Trust me when I say this: @Crucis is NOT making excuses for WOW.

(The mere thought of that makes me take my hands away from the keyboard because I'm laughing so very, very hard.)

Crucis is the guy who argues with Mods, Admins, Pigeons, Et Al, over every aspect of the game he has issues with; he is NOT the guy to defend them.

No, just the rest of his team who are hiding in smoke.

So rather than make those ships competitive, they gave them a cheat?

Actually, ya know what I think is a worse problem?  The friggin' Situation Awareness skill that every ship gets.  I think that it was awful when you had to select the skill.  Now, it's even worse.  Now, a DD can catch a BB alone and out of sight of your team mates, but because your DD can see him, his spidey sense is tingling and you have no hope of catching him by surprise.  This is utter nonsense.  It rewards players for being dumb and being alone in their BBs or cruisers when a stealthy DD has worked really hard to catch that enemy all by his lonesome.  IMO, this perhaps more than any other problem hurts stealthy DDs whose greatest ability is the ability to attack from surprise.  But where's the surprise when an enemy all by his lonesome gets to know that you're looking at him???

Situational awareness freebie skill should be outright removed from the game.  And players should have to develop their own personal sit awareness "skill".

It's just wrong that the only way for a stealthy DD to surprise an enemy BB is to catch him when that BB is spotted by a whole bunch of your team mates so that you can use their spotting as "camouflage" for you spotting him.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,265
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,278 battles
6 hours ago, Crucis said:

Now, a DD can catch a BB alone and out of sight of your team mates, but because your DD can see him, his spidey sense is tingling and you have no hope of catching him by surprise.  This is utter nonsense.

And when you add Radio Frequency Detection; the damn cheats even tell you which direction to freakin' go! Almost every "skill" is primarily aimed at screwing up stealth, and most of it is pure fantasy.

Situational awareness is just the start, then you have the "skill" which tells you how many players are aiming at you, and when it jumps down 1 and jumps back up you know a DD had fired torps at you; You have torp detection ranges that are totally unrealistic because for Christ's sake you can spot a torpedo further out than you can a whole damn ship in smoke. You have a "skill" which increases your mandatory detection range to 3 K.

Trust me when I tell you that DD's are the red-headed step-kids of this game.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×