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

How T9-10 DDs adapted to the new radar Meta: feet voting

179 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,316
[INTEL]
Members
9,266 posts
26,933 battles

On vacation here, and took a breather from new g/f and job hunting to run the numbers for DDs from Q3 and Q4 from here.

  Quarter 3   Quarter 4      
  Players Battles Players Battles Diff  
Kitakaze 5112 110778 5732 136145 25367  
Yugumo 6537 146543 5522 110705 35838  
Harugumo 3311 59403 5481 152628 93225  
Shimakaze 11235 453507 10945 391713 61794  
Z-46 2781 62904 2309 46477 13427  
Z-52 4619 89466 4204 79945 9521  
Chung Mu 2122 53008 1808 36308 16700  
Yueyang 3498 91259 3077 65370 25889  
Jutland 0 0 3170 78075 0  
Daring 0 0 2451 54633 0  
Tashkent 2619 40729 2189 31058 9671  
Udaloi 2249 35936 1905 28054 7432  
Grozovoi 3509 71853 3238 66778 5075  
Khabarovsk 4973 94016 4120 77598 16418  
Black 283 4364 324 5814 1450  
Fletcher 10385 245719 8828 182258 63461  
Gearing 12285 378907 11216 315531 63376  
  75518 1938392 76519 1859090  79302 w/o UK: 212010

 

It's pretty clear. When US CLs appeared at the beginning of Q3 the game was flooded with radar at T9-10. Hence we see the drop off as players, tired of flinging their DDs at walls of radar, curtailed their DD play. If you remove the new Jutland and Daring, the total falloff from Q3 to Q4 is 212,010 battles for all these DDs, even with the rise in Kiti and Haru. 

You might argue that the strong continued in the new meta while the weak left, but I generated another set of numbers from this data. Here are the games per player in the chart below. For example, in Q3 Shim players average 40.36 games in Shim, but only 35.78 in Q4. Note that not only did the number of players fall for most of these DDs (above chart) but the number of games per player also fell for most of them (chart below). Apparently "the strong" don't like DD play at high tiers much better than "the weak".  I suspect the fall was smaller for the T10s because of Ranked play, but it was still there, except for Groz....

  Q3 Q4
Yugumo 22.4 20.04
Shimakaze 40.36 35.78
Z-46 22.61 20.12
Z-52 19.36 19.01
Chung Mu 24.98 19.93
Yueyang 26.08 21.2
Tashkent 15.51 14.18
Udaloi 15.97 14.72
Grozovoi 20.47 20.62
Khabarovsk 18.9 18.83
Black 15.42 17.9
Fletcher 23.6 20.6
Gearing 30.84 28.13

 

...the most likely culprit is the new radar meta, which as many of us testified, was causing players to curtail DD play at the high tiers, since it is so unrewarding and unfun anymore. 

Enjoy.

  • Cool 18
  • Funny 4
  • Boring 5
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
997
[USCC2]
Members
4,420 posts

That could be one explanation.

I am not saying it couldn't be a reason but it could also be due to the type of missions that were on (for instance, I was playing a lot more submarines at one point, so it could be something else or a mixture of things?).

If the trend continues, then it is up to WG to assess and see if it is something they might be happy to accept - maybe a reduction in DD numbers is their plan - who knows?

I appreciate anyone posting info about things happening in game, but I don't see this being something I've seen affect the game in any way (DDs haven't disappeared). :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[USFF]
Members
182 posts
5,763 battles

Thanks for taking the time to compile the data. Very interesting stuff...as a DD main myself I cut way back during the Radar saturation. Would love to see some data after the CV rework goes live for the DDs. I'm expecting a mass exodus from the class. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,944 posts
7,259 battles

Fine with that.  For awhile there matches were dive bbs vs five dds with one or two cruisers.  That made for bad games.

 

Now, I usually see roughly equal numbers of bbs and cruisers and dds.  The days where each team might have five or even six dds are over and that's nothing but a good thing.

 

If it goes the other way where we end up with matches with no dds on a regular basis, then there's a problem.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
968
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,794 posts
6,163 battles

Care to compare it to the number of battles played overall, or are these just going to be more numbers with no point to compare to?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,391 posts
47 battles
Just now, GE_Capital said:

Care to compare it to the number of battles played overall, or are these just going to be more numbers with no point to compare to?

OP clearly has an agenda. He's stopped playing high-tiers because he can't adapt to radar, and now is showing "proof" that many players feel the same way as he does, when the percentage difference between the players didn't even reach 20%. 

 

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
968
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,794 posts
6,163 battles
Just now, RyuuohD_NA said:

OP clearly has an agenda. He's stopped playing high-tiers because he can't adapt to radar, and now is showing "proof" that many players feel the same way as he does, when the percentage difference between the players didn't even reach 20%. 

The number of players actually rose by 1.5% while the number of battles fell by ~7%.  I am fairly sure that number of battles follows the same trendline as overall battles played....

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
234
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
749 posts
4,613 battles

I'm a one ship kinda guy.  It was the Cleveland (hallowed by thy name).  Now it's the Des Moines.  So I'm basically a part of the radar problem.

That said, caps are a problem.  My experience is completely anecdotal.  But it does seem like more often than not, if you push the early cap hard, at best, you get the cap and lose a ship or two.  Negating the benefit of the early cap.  OFC, there's an obvious counter strat to that situation but then why have the caps at all.  The counter strat assumes a forward thinking and skilled player.  It also assumes your team isn't going to freak out when you try something a little different.  

That's asking a lot.

Edited by CommodoreKang
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[FAE]
Members
2,312 posts
2,885 battles

I think you DO have to take into account the UK DDs, plenty of players would be grinding those instead of other DDs. And Harugumo getting a massive spike is also significant for shifting players to play other ships. 

After all of that though, as you say, there's still an 80k drop in dd battles over all. Which is not peanuts. Actually seems to be about 3-4%. a 200k drop out of nearly 2mil games is a 10% drop. 

Also considering Q4 should be Xmas season, there should be MORE people playing, not less. So therefore, that's another significant piece of data to consider. 

 

I've basically shelved my DDs, especially my PA and USN that I used to love. I've completely lost any urge to grind up to Shima or Khab. I do play Harugumo.  

I wish WG would respond to this, putting a call out to tag the WG community managers. 

 

Edited by BlailBlerg
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[SIDE]
Members
1,764 posts
36 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

OP clearly has an agenda. He's stopped playing high-tiers because he can't adapt to radar, and now is showing "proof" that many players feel the same way as he does, when the percentage difference between the players didn't even reach 20%. 

 

Agree all points. OP was a regular instigator in the early days of the anti radar dumpster thread.  He speaks almost purely from a dd perspective

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
984
[KP]
Beta Testers
2,482 posts
12,162 battles

Nice figures you have there, I myself never worried to much abut the radar, there were ways to combat it, the biggest issue people had was the fact they wouldn't changed their tactics, and succumbed to playing the role of a dd as it was before the proliferation of all the radar, so they promptly died to it, then complained on the forums.

What I see at the higher tiers is a poor quality of BB players with garbage win rates and abysmal damage output, now I know this also to be true with the other classes as well, but as a DD player I would like to think that a BB player is capable of taking out the radars, but they don't, (I will add there are some awesome BB players out there that do understand this and I am not attacking BB players per'se, but the garbage ones).

A dd player will advance to that line of radar detection and if your team does not move up and put the radars under pressure to pull back then your team will not advance, to many times poor BB players are the reason a game is lost because they will not focus the radars.

As far as numbers of DD players go, I find it comes in cycles during a 24 hr period as to when you see just a couple or having 4 on your team consistently.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,481
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
9,328 posts
15,768 battles
1 hour ago, _WaveRider_ said:

I appreciate anyone posting info about things happening in game, but I don't see this being something I've seen affect the game in any way (DDs haven't disappeared).

It's certainly something I've seen. As @Shadeylark states, you used to see a lot of matches with 5 BBs and 5 DDs. What I see now are matches with 5 BBs, 5 cruisers, and 2 DDs. If there are CVs in the match it will most often take away a cruiser slot, though I have seen 2 CV matches with 5 BBs, 3 cruisers and still just 2 DDs. While I have noticed DD player numbers dropping, amazingly, you never see BB numbers fall. 

It took WoW 3 years to fix all the things they screwed up where CVs were concerned, and what we are getting is hardly what any thinking player would call a fix. CVs every other tier, no ability to actually control the ship you're supposed to be sailing, and one air squadron available at a time, with the entire RTS system tossed out the window; honestly, I've seen better solutions proposed in this very Forum for over 2 years. 

Whether you like or dislike DDs, I would like you to consider the exactly how much fun the game will be with 2 classes of ships being played, because it's become obvious that CVs are on the way out and, from the way they're being treated, DDs are next. Maybe the BB boys will get their way and this really will become World of Battleships; everyone can line up and get their brand new shiny paper Russian ships and then BBs will only be able to be hurt by BBs.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[808]
Supertester
332 posts
5,792 battles
55 minutes ago, Umikami said:

It's certainly something I've seen. As @Shadeylark states, you used to see a lot of matches with 5 BBs and 5 DDs. What I see now are matches with 5 BBs, 5 cruisers, and 2 DDs. If there are CVs in the match it will most often take away a cruiser slot, though I have seen 2 CV matches with 5 BBs, 3 cruisers and still just 2 DDs. While I have noticed DD player numbers dropping, amazingly, you never see BB numbers fall. 

It took WoW 3 years to fix all the things they screwed up where CVs were concerned, and what we are getting is hardly what any thinking player would call a fix. CVs every other tier, no ability to actually control the ship you're supposed to be sailing, and one air squadron available at a time, with the entire RTS system tossed out the window; honestly, I've seen better solutions proposed in this very Forum for over 2 years. 

Whether you like or dislike DDs, I would like you to consider the exactly how much fun the game will be with 2 classes of ships being played, because it's become obvious that CVs are on the way out and, from the way they're being treated, DDs are next. Maybe the BB boys will get their way and this really will become World of Battleships; everyone can line up and get their brand new shiny paper Russian ships and then BBs will only be able to be hurt by BBs.

 You absolutely nailed it!

 I dont wonder if we wouldn’t see a DD rework down the road at some point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
997
[USCC2]
Members
4,420 posts
2 hours ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

OP clearly has an agenda. He's stopped playing high-tiers because he can't adapt to radar, and now is showing "proof" that many players feel the same way as he does, when the percentage difference between the players didn't even reach 20%. 

 

But then you seem to show as much of an agenda with your reply.

Fact: numbers seem to have dipped. Fact: the reason as to why is speculation only.

Whether the OP can deal with the mechanics or not may be a reflection on the difficulty the community may have, or we may have wandered into the well used phrase from the torpedo soup days: 'not fun and engaging'.

Who knows?

Its always worth looking at how the game changes, for instance the recent AP 280+ change; I laugh at how some predict that DDs will become invincible - However, I would be the first to request a change if this is shown to be true. As a side note if 20% more BBs were killed by DDs I wouldn't believe you would be as dismissive as you are with this 20% figure(?) :Smile_honoring:

Edited by _WaveRider_
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51
[RIPCV]
Members
139 posts
658 battles
3 hours ago, Taichunger said:

You might argue that the strong continued in the new meta while the weak left, but I generated another set of numbers from this data. Here are the games per player in the chart below. For example, in Q3 Shim players average 40.36 games in Shim, but only 35.78 in Q4. Note that not only did the number of players fall for most of these DDs (above chart) but the number of games per player also fell for most of them (chart below). Apparently "the strong" don't like DD play at high tiers much better than "the weak".  I suspect the fall was smaller for the T10s because of Ranked play, but it was still there, except for Groz....

I don't see how this proves "the strong" are also leaving DDs in favor of other ships when "the strong" generally prefers to superunicum players who account for a statistical footnote anyways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
997
[USCC2]
Members
4,420 posts
1 hour ago, thebigblue said:

Agree all points. OP was a regular instigator in the early days of the anti radar dumpster thread.  He speaks almost purely from a dd perspective

His speculation may have an angle, as does your reason for comment I suspect?

However, I do not believe the evidence he has provided is false - it's just that the evidence doesn't actually give any indication as to the reason att. 

Just because you have disagreed in the past doesn't make his point any less valid - whether it be from a BB perspective, CA perspective or CV perspective (I mean, when did a pov from a particular ship type player become unacceptable, especially when the topic is about that ship type?:Smile_amazed:)

:Smile_honoring:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
997
[USCC2]
Members
4,420 posts
1 hour ago, Umikami said:

It's certainly something I've seen. As @Shadeylark states, you used to see a lot of matches with 5 BBs and 5 DDs. What I see now are matches with 5 BBs, 5 cruisers, and 2 DDs. If there are CVs in the match it will most often take away a cruiser slot, though I have seen 2 CV matches with 5 BBs, 3 cruisers and still just 2 DDs. While I have noticed DD player numbers dropping, amazingly, you never see BB numbers fall. 

It took WoW 3 years to fix all the things they screwed up where CVs were concerned, and what we are getting is hardly what any thinking player would call a fix. CVs every other tier, no ability to actually control the ship you're supposed to be sailing, and one air squadron available at a time, with the entire RTS system tossed out the window; honestly, I've seen better solutions proposed in this very Forum for over 2 years. 

Whether you like or dislike DDs, I would like you to consider the exactly how much fun the game will be with 2 classes of ships being played, because it's become obvious that CVs are on the way out and, from the way they're being treated, DDs are next. Maybe the BB boys will get their way and this really will become World of Battleships; everyone can line up and get their brand new shiny paper Russian ships and then BBs will only be able to be hurt by BBs.

I don't discount your personal experience and if many others experience it then it could be something WG feels it needs to do something about. Time will tell, I just do not feel it helps to comment on why a thing has happened, when we have no idea why it has happened.

Any assumption can only be a guess atm, without more info/evidence/time. :Smile_honoring:

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
452
[-AA-]
Members
1,754 posts
6,667 battles

Why don't you take the British DDs into account? Also Q4 is a weird quarter anyway. Seems to me a pretty far stretch to connect this to radar.

The only cruiser I am afraid for when I play DD is Zao.

 

Edited by LemonadeWarrior
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[CSM]
[CSM]
Members
425 posts
4,275 battles

I guess I could have been called a DD main with about 50% of all games in them, but I don't play them much anymore, I don't mind radar it's something you have to adjust too, no big deal.

I stopped playing DD because it's a loosing proposition, your either on a potatoe team that runs away from the first red ship it see's thus leaving you to be slaughtered, or your on a Unicum team that kills everything you spot long before your pathetically slow torps can ever reach them. In any case most games even a win looses silver.

so why not just jump in my Musashi and get half a million silver win or lose.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[WOLF7]
Members
212 posts
3,787 battles

Dont know If u guys remember but this last year there was a fix in the MM limiting the amount of DD per side to 4. While BB is unlimited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,797
[ARGSY]
Members
8,073 posts
5,494 battles
1 hour ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Why don't you take the British DDs into account?

Because it would ruin his case.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
184
[-TKS-]
[-TKS-]
Members
431 posts
5,241 battles
6 hours ago, Taichunger said:

...the most likely culprit is the new radar meta

 

I do appreciate the stat crunch and time to post it. But. I disagree with your conclusions. there were a lot of missions that benefited playing all ship types last quarter.  For example - snow flakes. I think that would account for the slight decrease in games per player.  there is only so much time in a day. 

How long does radar meta have to exist to not be called new anymore?  its been a long time. its bedtime for this topic. go to bed negative nancy, we need to make space for the salt from the cv rework. 

Edited by skillztowin
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51
[RIPCV]
Members
139 posts
658 battles
2 minutes ago, skillztowin said:

How long does radar meta have to exist to not be called new anymore?  its been a long time. its bedtime for this topic. go to bed negative nancy, make space for the salt truck from the cv rework. 

Until OP renames to "Province_of_China_er" long

Edited by WitchSakura
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,998
[HINON]
Members
10,105 posts
1 hour ago, demeflac said:

Dont know If u guys remember but this last year there was a fix in the MM limiting the amount of DD per side to 4. While BB is unlimited.

It's a soft cap and bbs also have a soft cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×