Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Willy55_1955

Suggested Radar Change

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

296
[ONAVY]
[ONAVY]
Members
673 posts
15,520 battles

Since WG can't seem to engineer or implement island masking in radar usage, how about when there is no line of sight (LOS) a ship location can be marked by radar but no identity attached until it is seen with the Mark-1 Eyeball?

  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
296
[ONAVY]
[ONAVY]
Members
673 posts
15,520 battles
27 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

I think they tried that already didn't like the results and canceled

 

we get what we get

 

If we remain meek and allow it.

Edited by Willy55_1955
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,521
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,441 posts
4,198 battles
23 minutes ago, Willy55_1955 said:

I we remain meek and allow it.

You can leave anytime.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,521
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,441 posts
4,198 battles
9 minutes ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Why would I want to leave?

You commented that we were the ones laying down and allowing WG to do what they wanted with radar. The way you tell a company you don't like what they're doing is by not patronizing their products. Don't get all righteous about how we're letting WG walk over us if you're not actually willing to back up words with actions.

My own opinion on radar is it could be better, but it's not a huge issue at the moment. WG has bigger fish (CVs) to fry at the moment.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
296
[ONAVY]
[ONAVY]
Members
673 posts
15,520 battles
1 minute ago, AJTP89 said:

You commented that we were the ones laying down and allowing WG to do what they wanted with radar. The way you tell a company you don't like what they're doing is by not patronizing their products. Don't get all righteous about how we're letting WG walk over us if you're not actually willing to back up words with actions.

My own opinion on radar is it could be better, but it's not a huge issue at the moment. WG has bigger fish (CVs) to fry at the moment.

That is a non-constructive way of telling a company anything. Look at the CCs who create content that tells what is liked, not liked, could be approved, and in some cases changes are made based on that feedback. Because I make a suggestion, that I should leave is rubbish. Remember, WG tested a change that worked on the PTS and  they decided to leave us to suffer because they think there is a better way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,689
[PVE]
Members
4,677 posts
20,617 battles
8 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

You commented that we were the ones laying down and allowing WG to do what they wanted with radar. The way you tell a company you don't like what they're doing is by not patronizing their products. Don't get all righteous about how we're letting WG walk over us if you're not actually willing to back up words with actions.

My own opinion on radar is it could be better, but it's not a huge issue at the moment. WG has bigger fish (CVs) to fry at the moment.

Really?  It is still a huge issue if you are a DD driver and there are PLANES.........  Ah, what is the point of the DD class of ships with the two meta's eliminating their real strengths???  So they can be "targets" for the meta players????  How in the world is that fun?  Or balanced? 

Radar needs to be one radar one ship.   There was no way in WW2 for the radar tech to "immediately relay" positioning data to everyone......  Nor, after 5 minutes, would it be valid in a moving situation.....    AA radar would work the same way if WG were smart enough to introduce DD Picket ships that mounted radar in WW2 (The Akizuki line and her cousins...  The Fletcher's used as  AA Pciket ships.   The German Flak CL's....  etc.)

If you seriously want our host to listen, there is only one thing that will get their attention: STOP SPENDING.....  Money talks.  I redacted the other options.    CV's and Radar have ruined the game for quite a few people....  Both, could be a lot better is our host would just listen.....

 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,521
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,441 posts
4,198 battles
8 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

Really?  It is still a huge issue if you are a DD driver and there are PLANES.........  Ah, what is the point of the DD class of ships with the two meta's eliminating their real strengths???  So they can be "targets" for the meta players????  How in the world is that fun?  Or balanced? 

Radar needs to be one radar one ship.   There was no way in WW2 for the radar tech to "immediately relay" positioning data to everyone......  Nor, after 5 minutes, would it be valid in a moving situation.....    AA radar would work the same way if WG were smart enough to introduce DD Picket ships that mounted radar in WW2 (The Akizuki line and her cousins...  The Fletcher's used as  AA Pciket ships.   The German Flak CL's....  etc.)

If you seriously want our host to listen, there is only one thing that will get their attention: STOP SPENDING.....  Money talks.  I redacted the other options.    CV's and Radar have ruined the game for quite a few people....  Both, could be a lot better is our host would just listen.....

 

Yes, but of the two, CVs are the more important problem right now. They need to get those fixed (or removed) and then they can worry about radar.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
296
[ONAVY]
[ONAVY]
Members
673 posts
15,520 battles
6 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

Really?  It is still a huge issue if you are a DD driver and there are PLANES.........  Ah, what is the point of the DD class of ships with the two meta's eliminating their real strengths???  So they can be "targets" for the meta players????  How in the world is that fun?  Or balanced? 

Radar needs to be one radar one ship.   There was no way in WW2 for the radar tech to "immediately relay" positioning data to everyone......  Nor, after 5 minutes, would it be valid in a moving situation.....    AA radar would work the same way if WG were smart enough to introduce DD Picket ships that mounted radar in WW2 (The Akizuki line and her cousins...  The Fletcher's used as  AA Pciket ships.   The German Flak CL's....  etc.)

If you seriously want our host to listen, there is only one thing that will get their attention: STOP SPENDING.....  Money talks.  I redacted the other options.    CV's and Radar have ruined the game for quite a few people....  Both, could be a lot better is our host would just listen.....

 

I believe in the historic reality as you note in your post, but radar right now is 2 dimensional. We actually get to see planes far from us, so all we need to do is advance a DD far enough forward to get early spots. Do that in my Daring all the time. If you NEVER make a suggestion it is always rejected (If you don't ask the question the answer is always no).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,649
[GGWP]
Members
7,141 posts
16,416 battles
7 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

Really?  It is still a huge issue if you are a DD driver and there are PLANES.........  Ah, what is the point of the DD class of ships with the two meta's eliminating their real strengths???  So they can be "targets" for the meta players????  How in the world is that fun?  Or balanced? 

I'm playing a lot of dds lately. And absolutely wrecking teams with them. Radar and planes haven't had much success against my Mahan. Burning down Atlantas at range is fun. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,811
[DEV_X]
Alpha Tester
2,496 posts
24,860 battles
1 hour ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Since WG can't seem to engineer or implement island masking in radar usage, how about when there is no line of sight (LOS) a ship location can be marked by radar but no identity attached until it is seen with the Mark-1 Eyeball?

To not see through islands would potentially ruin the game. Someone would catch on that they could park their DD behind an island and just nuke people that slowly come around them. Soon word would spread and DDs would island camp just Dev strike whoever was brave enough to round the corner first. Thus islands would be death traps and people would play even less aggressively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
296
[ONAVY]
[ONAVY]
Members
673 posts
15,520 battles
1 minute ago, Skuggsja said:

To not see through islands would potentially ruin the game. Someone would catch on that they could park their DD behind an island and just nuke people that slowly come around them. Soon word would spread and DDs would island camp just Dev strike whoever was brave enough to round the corner first. Thus islands would be death traps and people would play even less aggressively.

No different than cruisers camping behind islands now. Gives a greater necessity for DDs to scout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,649
[GGWP]
Members
7,141 posts
16,416 battles
2 minutes ago, Skuggsja said:

To not see through islands would potentially ruin the game. Someone would catch on that they could park their DD behind an island and just nuke people that slowly come around them. Soon word would spread and DDs would island camp just Dev strike whoever was brave enough to round the corner first. Thus islands would be death traps and people would play even less aggressively.

Yep, a lot of people fail to understand that radar doesn't really hurt bad players. They were going to die stupidly anyways, either pushing to the other side of a cap into the enemy or sitting broadside in smoke waiting for torps to hit them, etc. These players keep using radar as the excuse for being bad. In reality radar keeps games longer and from being a blowout as good dd players would absolutely romp over teams without a check like radar in place. The bad dd players will die regardless and radar keeps good dd players cautious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,689
[PVE]
Members
4,677 posts
20,617 battles
53 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

I'm playing a lot of dds lately. And absolutely wrecking teams with them. Radar and planes haven't had much success against my Mahan. Burning down Atlantas at range is fun.

As the saying goes:  location, location and location !   It all depends on whom is in the game and with what as well....  Yes, there are no CV matches that you can "get away with being a DD"; specially, if the Radar cruiser are less skilled.....  If not, TOAST and constantly spotted till they rocket you to death yet again......

I've had 2 CV and 4 radr ships matches in DD's where I had to hang back with the wall of battle; and then, die at end game to planes, planes and more planes.....

So you are correct for 40% of the matches..........the other 60% are massacres for me....  Why would I waste my time for a 40% possible win rate that I could not remotely help with......  No thanks.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,259
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,191 posts
14,756 battles

If radar can't see through land then ships should not be able to see out of or through smoke without having radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,848
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

If radar can't see through land then ships should not be able to see out of or through smoke without having radar.

This is untrue. WG already tested this and it is technically possible.

They just didn't like that cruisers had to take any kind of risk to completely remove the one and only defense of every destroyer within the radar radius.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,259
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,191 posts
14,756 battles
3 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

This is untrue. WG already tested this and it is technically possible.

They just didn't like that cruisers had to take any kind of risk to completely remove the one and only defense of every destroyer within the radar radius.

I was replying to the OP and all the "RADAR CAN'T SEE THROUGH LAND!" people to make a point. While I would enjoy smoke removing site of things outside or beyond it, I play WWII/WWI naval miniatures, I doubt most people would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
2 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Since WG can't seem to engineer or implement island masking in radar usage, how about when there is no line of sight (LOS) a ship location can be marked by radar but no identity attached until it is seen with the Mark-1 Eyeball?

Because DD's don't need yet another advantage against other surface ships.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,848
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

I was replying to the OP and all the "RADAR CAN'T SEE THROUGH LAND!" people to make a point. While I would enjoy smoke removing site of things outside or beyond it, I play WWII/WWI naval miniatures, I doubt most people would.

Ah, I misread it since it looked so similar to the "But then radar can't see through smoke either" comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,136
[RG]
Members
2,894 posts
7,186 battles
17 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

If radar can't see through land then ships should not be able to see out of or through smoke without having radar.

 

13 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

This is untrue. WG already tested this and it is technically possible.

They just didn't like that cruisers had to take any kind of risk to completely remove the one and only defense of every destroyer within the radar radius.

He’s talking about a “fairness” issue, and has a point. It’s either LoS, or it isn’t. For myself, I’d be ok with smoke blocking LoS for all if the radar ships couldn’t radiate (radar OR hydro) from behind rocks. They would be lots more circumspect in their use if there were consequences for doing so - as there are for DDs on the receiving end. 

And it does appear that CVs are the larger issue for DDs atm. I guess it’s too much to expect that they could do both. 

Edited by Thornir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,848
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
1 minute ago, Thornir said:

He’s talking about a “fairness” issue, and has a point. It’s wither LoS, or it isn’t. For myself, I’d be ok with smoke blocking LoS for all if the radar ships couldn’t radiate (radar OR hydro) from behind rocks. They would be lots more circumspect in their use if there were consequences for doing so - as there are for DDs on the receiving end. 

And it does appear that CVs are the larger issue for DDs atm. I guess it’s too much to expect that they could do both. 

Basically he was demanding that smoke do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,136
[RG]
Members
2,894 posts
7,186 battles
Just now, KiyoSenkan said:

Basically he was demanding that smoke do nothing.

Smoke still breaks LoS, which is huge if people can’t hide in safety and spam radar or hydro. Think about how it would change the game if ships couldn’t detect from cover. I might even come back to play that game. 

But, while DD players confront the highest skill floor, radar proliferation and now CV proliferation, the thought of cruisers at risk will continue to keep Developers awake at night  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,928
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,447 posts
20,660 battles

The real reason is not technical, as others have said. WG internally tested and rejected the idea.

I suspect the real reason is that without being able to radar/hydro through terrain, there was no feasible way to break certain camp spots. You basically park behind them, and the only way anybody can spot you is by rushing into the open at short range and getting annihilated. By allowing hydro and radar spotting through terrain, people in those camping spots can be lit without suicide spotting, and someone in a different position can siege them.

Here's an example from North:

Spoiler

419wYnX.png

A Des Moines or Salem in this position cannot be spotted without driving into the chokepoint. Its concealment (10.9km) is too small to be seen from the farther east position.

Spoiler

Z5ozHDv.png

This setup is therefore extremely defender-favored, turning the entire east side of the map into a camp zone.

HOWEVER, by allowing hydro and radar to see through the island, a ship in that camp spot can be lit by another ship positioned safely in the mirror position. A ship on the east flank can then siege the camp from relative safety, allowing the stalemate to be broken.

Spoiler

fEs8ToT.png

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×