Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Botcha

Assured Detection Ranges...need to change

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

47
[-RNG-]
[-RNG-]
Members
137 posts
8,534 battles

Simply put a BB shouldn't have the same assured detection range (in smoke) as a CA or a DD. That is absolute B.S. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,795
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
17,471 posts
10,162 battles

Why not as long as they are not firing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[VVV]
Members
390 posts
2,382 battles
8 minutes ago, Botcha said:

Simply put a BB shouldn't have the same assured detection range (in smoke) as a CA or a DD. That is absolute B.S. 

Well, this used to be the case. It was changed, as it was promoting passive battleship play. All ships have one of two assured detection range, but the detection range in smoke is different than that. Also, don't fire in smoke if you don't want your detection to go up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RNG-]
[-RNG-]
Members
137 posts
8,534 battles
2 minutes ago, AtlanticRim said:

Well, this used to be the case. It was changed, as it was promoting passive battleship play. All ships have one of two assured detection range, but the detection range in smoke is different than that. Also, don't fire in smoke if you don't want your detection to go up.

No I get the firing in smoke deal and that was a welcome change. I'm just saying that ships of incredible size shouldn't be as hidden as a thumbtack. 

DD = 2KM
CL/CA = 4KM
BB/BC/CV = 6KM 

Still pretty short ranges but that would at least give DD's a chance to attack a non-firing smoke humper since they have so many mechanics working against them (RDF, Radar, Hydro) and zero protection from those from behind islands. 

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,029
Members
2,573 posts
3,556 battles

I get what you're saying, but what's the logic? Are you suggesting that smoke is somehow less smokey when there's a larger ship in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[KIWI]
Alpha Tester
190 posts
3,244 battles
15 minutes ago, Harathan said:

I get what you're saying, but what's the logic? Are you suggesting that smoke is somehow less smokey when there's a larger ship in it?

The logic is a small item is harder to spot in smoke. You can see the loom of a large building much further away than a person...

  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,029
Members
2,573 posts
3,556 battles
14 minutes ago, Dr_Omega said:

The logic is a small item is harder to spot in smoke. You can see the loom of a large building much further away than a person...

  

To clarify: logical in terms of game mechanics and balance. Please don't try to justify changes based on how anything works in real life, that's never going to fly.

For instance, as it stands smoke is currently opaque for LOS purposes; that is, ships can be concealed behind smoke, as well as in it. How would the proposed change take that into account? Would it also affect assured detection outside of smoke, say, behind islands? Are islands suddenly more see-thru just because it's a BB next to it?

As noted earlier, BBs having much higher assured detection ranges ends up promoting more passive BB gameplay; BB drivers will literally never go anywhere remotely near an island or smoke for any reason if there's an enemy DD remotely nearby that could sneak up behind it.

Edited by Harathan
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-TDF-]
Beta Testers
425 posts
3,482 battles
1 hour ago, Botcha said:

Simply put a BB shouldn't have the same assured detection range (in smoke) as a CA or a DD. That is absolute B.S. 

Let me guess you ran down a smoke cloud looking to get the drop on a IJN DD only to get blapped in the face by a BB?

:cap_haloween:

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RNG-]
[-RNG-]
Members
137 posts
8,534 battles
52 minutes ago, Harathan said:

As noted earlier, BBs having much higher assured detection ranges ends up promoting more passive BB gameplay; BB drivers will literally never go anywhere remotely near an island or smoke for any reason if there's an enemy DD remotely nearby that could sneak up behind it.

Since when do BB's get closer than 6km to anything as it stands now in the current meta? Stating that it will cause BB's to be even MORE passive is ludicrous. 

 

35 minutes ago, Stand_Alone97 said:

Let me guess you ran down a smoke cloud looking to get the drop on a IJN DD only to get blapped in the face by a BB?

Not entirely true, a friendly DD smoked up and bolted their smoke but it lingered, I was in a DD skirting that smoke only to have a BB de-cloak 2km away from me and I was pissed...that's all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,029
Members
2,573 posts
3,556 battles
Just now, Botcha said:

Since when do BB's get closer than 6km to anything as it stands now in the current meta? Stating that it will cause BB's to be even MORE passive is ludicrous. 

BB's get plenty close to islands right now on island heavy maps; 6km is further than I think you realise. Regardless, that was only one of several points made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
850
[XBRTC]
Members
2,309 posts
8,233 battles
2 hours ago, Botcha said:

No I get the firing in smoke deal and that was a welcome change. I'm just saying that ships of incredible size shouldn't be as hidden as a thumbtack. 

DD = 2KM
CL/CA = 4KM
BB/BC/CV = 6KM 

Still pretty short ranges but that would at least give DD's a chance to attack a non-firing smoke humper since they have so many mechanics working against them (RDF, Radar, Hydro) and zero protection from those from behind islands. 

 

I'mma go out on a limb here and say you haven't ever driven in really dense fog before.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,332 posts
1,475 battles
7 minutes ago, Botcha said:

 

 

Not entirely true, a friendly DD smoked up and bolted their smoke but it lingered, I was in a DD skirting that smoke only to have a BB de-cloak 2km away from me and I was pissed...that's all.  

Image result for gomer pyle surprise surprise surprise

Think about how many times you've never de-cloaked and that BB had a 6 fish main course.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
304
[5IN]
Members
1,925 posts
8,938 battles
1 hour ago, Harathan said:

Would it also affect assured detection outside of smoke, say, behind islands? Are islands suddenly more see-thru just because it's a BB next to it?

That is one part of the mechanic that has always annoyed me... an island should obscure no matter what.  Its an age old argument (radar, hydro, etc.) that will never be settled.  We just have to live with it.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RNG-]
[-RNG-]
Members
137 posts
8,534 battles
1 hour ago, DrHolmes52 said:

Think about how many times you've never de-cloaked and that BB had a 6 fish main course.

That's the point of being a DD and punishing a [edited] BB that charges smoke. 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,462
[PNG]
Supertester, Beta Testers
5,777 posts
6,802 battles

Raising detection for ranges for battleships and cruisers is only a nerf for cruisers. Most battleships wouldn't care for it. However, RNCL and other smoke cruisers get destroyed by this, as do cruiser/DD combos like Gearing/Zao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,994
[HINON]
Members
10,089 posts

I don't see why this change is needed to improve gameplay. BBs already are easy to focus to oblivion and this would punish those who use smoke to escape.

 

pHpJ8Mx.gif

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RNG-]
[-RNG-]
Members
137 posts
8,534 battles
49 minutes ago, Compassghost said:

Raising detection for ranges for battleships and cruisers is only a nerf for cruisers. Most battleships wouldn't care for it. However, RNCL and other smoke cruisers get destroyed by this, as do cruiser/DD combos like Gearing/Zao.

What I purposed wasn't that Earth shattering of a difference... 4km assured detect range for a CA/CL isn't a game breaker and a 6km for BB isn't either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RNG-]
[-RNG-]
Members
137 posts
8,534 battles
2 hours ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

I'mma go out on a limb here and say you haven't ever driven in really dense fog before.

Sure I have, and I see Semi's WAY before VW bugs...

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
850
[XBRTC]
Members
2,309 posts
8,233 battles
Just now, Botcha said:

Sure I have, and I see Semi's WAY before VW bugs...

Then you don’t know what zero visibility means.

truly dense fog or smoke—and bear in mind that smoke is INTENDED to block visibility—means that you literally cannot see the bow of the ship from the bridge. You can’t see the WATER,  never mind anything else floating on it. Even 2000 yards is an artificially inflated distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RNG-]
[-RNG-]
Members
137 posts
8,534 battles
11 minutes ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

Then you don’t know what zero visibility means.

truly dense fog or smoke—and bear in mind that smoke is INTENDED to block visibility—means that you literally cannot see the bow of the ship from the bridge. You can’t see the WATER,  never mind anything else floating on it. Even 2000 yards is an artificially inflated distance.

And you are over-estimating the effects of smoke from a ship under any sea-like conditions once soever. There has NEVER been any "smoke" screen to hide an entire battleship, it barely hides itself 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
850
[XBRTC]
Members
2,309 posts
8,233 battles
12 minutes ago, Botcha said:

And you are over-estimating the effects of smoke from a ship under any sea-like conditions once soever. There has NEVER been any "smoke" screen to hide an entire battleship, it barely hides itself 

  

I’m speaking from personal experience, friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RNG-]
[-RNG-]
Members
137 posts
8,534 battles
32 minutes ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

I’m speaking from personal experience, friend.

Driving in dense smoke/fog or trying to hide a Battleship with a smoke screen? Because one is apples the other is oranges 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
851 posts
5,257 battles
1 hour ago, RipNuN2 said:

I don't see why this change is needed to improve gameplay. BBs already are easy to focus to oblivion and this would punish those who use smoke to escape.

 

pHpJ8Mx.gif

Best one yet !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
850
[XBRTC]
Members
2,309 posts
8,233 battles
28 minutes ago, Botcha said:

Driving in dense smoke/fog or trying to hide a Battleship with a smoke screen? Because one is apples the other is oranges 

 

No, I'm speaking from the personal experience of years of driving warships at sea in all weather conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,795
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
17,471 posts
10,162 battles
1 hour ago, Botcha said:

And you are over-estimating the effects of smoke from a ship under any sea-like conditions once soever. There has NEVER been any "smoke" screen to hide an entire battleship, it barely hides itself 

  

 

1 hour ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

I’m speaking from personal experience, friend.

Remember that distance is compressed so the real distance is more like three times the distance in the game so 2 Km which is more or less equal to a nautical mile or 2,000 yards so that is three miles. For those of you that live or have lived near the ocean or the great lakes can attest how small a thousand foot ship looks from three miles away. Ad in smoke and even the biggest BB becomes a ghost.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×