Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'concealment'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 38 results

  1. Rather than having concealment be a full-time thing, what if ships had 50% higher concealment across the board, but could use a consumable that would temporarily lower their concealment down to their current levels? Would that appease those that find concealment frustrating? Would it really stop good concealment players from still dominating matches?
  2. Wargaming considers it a problem that DDs are able to escape from BB/CAs because they are faster and have lower detection. They likely consider this an issue because a skilled DD player can have their way with an inexperienced BB/CA player. WG has painted themselves into a corner now with radar, as they obviously can't get rid of it without a bunch of folks having a conniption. But there were plenty of other ways to address this issue (assuming you think it IS an issue, which I do not, but that's neither here nor there). The simplest way would be to alter DD concealment based on speed: 75% speed = Full concealment. Full speed = Concealment + 50%. (You're going full throttle creating lots of mist and wake, with your engine belching smoke like a madman with a cigar addiction) Speed boost = Concealment +100% (Hey, you want to move fast pretty much everyone is going to see you) It would allow CAs to chase DDs. While the DD can go faster than a CA, they do so at the expense of their concealment. A DD that remained concealed and moved at 75% would have to use position to avoid being detected and certainly wouldn't be able to do the "hit and run" tactics people complain about with DDs (which I've never really seen). Now, this is an example of a nerf or balance adjustment that makes the game more insteresting for everyone. For both the DDs and the CA/BBs. It would create lots of emergent and fun tactics, which should be the goal of any designer working on competitive online games. Compare this to radar which is a purely hard-counter that adds no additional options or strategies to the game, and does not add to the fun of both the user and the victim. If you're still wondering about the reasoning behing WGs decision that it's not okay for DDs to be faster/stealthier than CA/BBs you can read this:
  3. At around 15:25 I fire at the Okhotnik before it dissappears behind the island. As a result I go undetected again, since there is nothing that can spot me. Though for some reason I maintain the 10km detectability for the regular 20? seconds. I thought you would get your detectability immediately back when you are undetected again... I am not much of a DD player, so I could be wrong. Noticed the same when I was grinding my US line. Greetz Lemon P.S.: I have attached the replay file. EDIT: Did some digging and found out that it is a bug (or Wiki is wrong). http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Detection 20180321_171240_PJSD207-Shiratsuyu_17_NA_fault_line.wowsreplay
  4. Dunkerque Needs Concealment Buff

    Seriously, what the heck? 14.1 km with Concealment Expert??? Warspite, Bayern, New Mexico and Queen Elizabeth all have LOWER detection range without Concealment Expert. And while we're at it, did WG nerf the Dunkerque's accuracy? I hadn't played her much but thought it was better than this.
  5. I have put together a short guide with all the relevant things you need to know about smoke changes. Sub_Octavian reviewed for accuracy, as I wanted to ensure you got exact information.
  6. The game currently seems to not take in to account the -3% camo bonus from paints as part of the concealment level, but only in battle, and it seems to affect all classes. I'm assuming this is a bug related to the smoke changes but have yet to see anyone else bring it up.
  7. Hey everyone. I finished the Yamato grind a few weeks back. I have been playing Yamato every day, and some Enterprise from time to time. I have two primary questions. Forgive me for adding a new topic just for these two questions but I did feel like I would like some fresh Yamato brain food. So, Concealment. Is there an amount of time that concealment requires to be effective? I watched several Yamato recommendation youtube play videos and reviews and they all seem to recommend that I go for max concealment on the Yamato. Now. If I were to max out my concealment on the Yamato I am sure I would be a bit of a heavier asset to my team. However, to use the concealment modification instead of the acquisition and spotting modification I feel like I am losing my mid to long range buff. I designed my Yamato to be a mid to long range terror, mostly mid range I suppose between 8-15 KM since my shells nearly 1 volley kill everything at that range. Now with concealment captain skill I am losing my fire risk reduction (at least until I get quite a few more captains points). Fires do burn the Yamato down quite a bit, however I suppose the concealment is rather important for the Yamato in that with a high concealment the Yamato does not require the same amount of friendly team support. In urpeacekeeper's Yamato video/review he states the Yamato is best played with a sum of friendly support ships nearby. My other question about the Yamato is the rate of fire / traverse speed modification. So. The modification for increased turret traverse raises the loading time. Now as I have seen there is no other means of increasing the turret traverse. (I have the traverse captain skill). The loading time increases with the traverse speed increase. I have seen that the traverse speed, without the modification is so slow that I am infinitely crippled without the + turret traverse modification. So I must sacrifice my reloading time to increase the traverse. I find that with the +traverse speed modifications I am able to deal massive damage to enemy ship after enemy ship, even rotating targets with my rear turret. Without the +traverse modification I find that with the reload time being very short I can deal massive damage to one ship at a time, however much of the time that ship gets concealment buffed or "despotted" and I am left with nothing to fire at and a long wait time to endure to traverse and switch targets. So I believe that the Yamato, to be effective mid to long range, must have an average 25 second reload time and a fully buffed turret traverse in order to require the least amount of friendly ship support and be a more stand alone BB. Any other idea's/suggestions?
  8. Escalate conatiners

    I would like to send this request to the powers that be that control WOWS. As a player spends more time battling it out hour after hour during a day,that player seeks containers for needs. I believe that the first round should be , say the token 4 signals, . As he/she escalates to the 2nd level there should be say, 6 singals, and escalate to 8 signals in the final point of acquiring them. It is disheartening to just get the same old 4 after so many hours of gameplay. I just use signals as an example, but whatever the container holds should be escalated in content as more containers are sought during a single day. Tell me what you think...
  9. How to Dmitri Donskoi?

    After (mostly) enjoying the Chapayev I was looking forward to the Dmitri and those 180mm guns but after my first games I am underwhelmed. The guns hit hard but this thing can be spotted from orbit. The stock range of its guns is only barely higher than the ship's base concealment rating. I spent the free XP to jump right to the B-hull so I could maneuver better but it still handles like an overloaded bus. Should I even bother with concealment upgrades and skills or should I go for the decreased rudder shift time in that slot instead? Is IFHE worth it for 180mm guns? How do I not suck in this thing? Even pre-buff Pensacola seemed easier than this. Also between buying the Dmitri and the New Orleans while they are on sale I am almost back in the poor house. Why the hell can't a supercontainer give me 20 million credits instead of theses stupid modules it keeps giving me? Maybe I am just getting a bit burnt out playing cruisers lately but I've had a lot of frustration lately with them. Maybe I'm due for a break. Also does anybody have information on the paper design this ship is based on? Why the YUGE superstructure?
  10. Vaporizing Ships

    Ok, I'm really getting pi**ed off! Not only is it becoming incredibly intolerable dealing with the constant stupid updating that knocks off settings and legal mods but WG is really REALLY beginning to screw up in my opinion. I can't be the only one out here that feels this way but WG has dropped the ball in a few key areas. Recently I nearly punched my monitor in fits of rage because the stupid unrealistic concealment system WG adapted into update 6 is a goddamn joke! In my Bismarck, FDG it is worse. Not only is the RNG all over the map in higher tiers (or so it seems) but DD's that just up and disappear are utterly stupid and cruisers do the same. Most of the time there is no smoke generation, no fog, it's a clear day on the map yet enemy DD's are now being cloaked by what seems to be a complete secretive system rendering them invisible! I had a DD launch torpedos at 4.7 kms away turn and disappear.....no smoke just gone, GONE! After several mins and several attempts at sneak attacks he reappears 11 kms away... wth?! Are you serious? How the hell does a ship without smoke disappear on clear water? At distance another really dumb issue is tracking. I could be 10 -12 kms away looking to broadside a cruiser that stalking me and just as I'm reloaded I drift behind an island and block myself ( ok bad timing) but I'm tracking the cruiser the entire time, then I come out from the other side and just as I'm at the edge of the island readying to open fire......*poof* .... he vaporizes then I get and "incoming" alert and see him open up as I zoom out trying to lock him again! It happens all the time. It is bordering on absurd, how is it that targets as close as 6 kms disappear on a clear day? Realistic? Not on your life! WG, take notice! Stop uploading useless updates, take time preping correct patches and update once every couple of weeks when you actually figure s**t out and bring the realism back. Many of us forgive the the issues because lets face it you're academics trying to build a digital realistic playing field from diagrams and schematics but some other issues like the ones addressed above can't be ignored. Really enjoy getting into this game but when the issues become more infuriating than the surroundings you're trying to escape from for just a short amount, it's no longer worth playing! S.S.
  11. So I've recently been playing and enjoying the Mogami and was going to continue using the 155s until i got to the Ibuki. I have my Takao for 203mm gameplay, and Ill admit, I liked the difference in playstyle (despite the nerfs that have been made against this setup in previous patches, such as reduced turret rotation and the removed of AFT) As you may be aware, as of 0.6.2, concealment for Mogami was unique in that it was tied to the hull, so by using the A hull with the 155s you would have the advantage of 1.4km more concealment when firing the main guns than a C hull with the 203mm setup. With Concealment expert, the Concealment mod module, and the A hull with the 155s, Mogami was a cruiser that with a base detection of 9.3km, a range of 15.7km (upgraded) and a 13.9 detectibility after firing. However, come 0.6.3, when detectibility is tied to firing range, there is no longer any incentive to pick the 155 setup. It no longer gains the previously mentioned advantage, but the 155 setup is still saddled with the rest of its negative aspects (turret rotation etc) The quote above is a little confusing for me, but considering stealth fire is being removed, and that detectibility is tied to range, I presume that it includes a 'bottom' mogami hull (A Hull) with the 155mm guns - (it wouldn't make sense for Mogami to be the only ship that can stealth fire under the new rules. Therefore, Mogami is losing its A hull advantage. I want to ask the community, will anyone else be using 155 after the patch? I mean, the 203 setup already had advantages in the other areas, better AA, better rudder shift, better fire chance, better AP etc etc. I knew this. However, I feel that the effect of this patch is essentially WG disregarding their players and their choice of setup - That was the purpose of having two gun calibres to pick from... right? I dont want this to be a stealth fire rant thread - I've expressed my opinions on that elsewhere. But regardless, unless there is a buff or a correction to make Mogami 155 more enjoyable to play, I feel like WG is abandoning this setup and the players who enjoy it, and that is a shame. PS: I know I will be able to equip the gun fire control system 1 instead of the upgrade to reduce the max range and thus detectability, but this should not be required. I also feel sorry for other players who will lose enjoyment for a ship class after this patch. This and the Blyska will hurt me, but for US and IJN DD mains, I have no words...
  12. PS. The poll has little to do with my proposed solution, it's just to get a feel for how happy/unhappy people are with the 0.6.3 solution Ahh Stealth firing, so much controversy. First off, In my opinion, open water stealth fire is not really any different from firing from behind smoke or cover, it's a game mechanic that has been here for a long time and even tho I play mostly battleships I haven't run into truly problematic stealth firing all that often. So in my opinion this is an un-needed change that has more likelihood of causing trouble than really fixing anything. That said, I understand that the decision has been made to do something about open water stealth firing, so I will not bother to argue against making a change here because that boat has already sailed. As far as I can tell, the real problem with stealth fire is the gimicky and "un-counterable" type of stealth fire where a ship threw good concealment can fire at targets without being spotted in return, without the use of external functions such as smoke, cover or team members. The best example I can think of is a DD out in the open firing at a BB, the BB usually can't hope to catch up to the DD and so that DD can just pick him apart (death by 1000 cuts) Now, I can see how that can be very demoralizing and frustrating, and I am not opposed to trying to remove this aspect from the game-play. (Even tho I haven't really seen it much at all in my +/- 1000 BB games) That kind of helpless situation does more harm than good and I don't think that removing that would harm the game. Now, the proposed solution (https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/pt063/) So, on paper it looks pretty good, open water only, wont apply behind obstacles yadda yadda. I read this and my first thought is "Great, easy fix" But when you really start to think about it, It really does apply to firing behind obstacles.... Since this is a team game, your target at A cap may well have an ally, WAY over at C cap with line of sight to you. Now you say, what's wrong with that? Well again, on the surface nothing.... but then you start to look at what this means in certain maps and for certain ships, firing from behind cover has now been nerfed. Right now in my Fletcher, If I put an island between me and the enemy team and start firing at them, I can only be detected threw radar/hydro, or someone sneaking around the island at a range of 9.6km. After the proposed change, If I'm sitting behind an island at C, some random guy out on the red line or way over at A cap could now spot me because I'm lit at 15.5 KM (I imagine that none will use the gun range upgrade at this point). Please note, this random guy is: Probably not even aware of whats happening at C Probably intent on whatever he is doing Almost certainly not looking for me or trying to counter me in any way Possibly not even in range to fire on me even if he does notice me Now suddenly, that position behind cover, has been nerfed by a system that was put in place to only affect ONLY for open water stealth firing.... I would be countered (to a degree at at least) not by skill, not by good game sense, but simply because someone happened to be way out there too far away to even know what is happening on my side of the map. And this scenario will apply to many Cruisers as-well. Now, Does the proposed solution fix a problem? perhaps but many ships will probably need to be retouched as a result of this change. Many ships that rely pretty heavily on stealth fire will now need something else in order to remain competitive. Here is my solution, it allows players to counter the stealth firing game play in much the same way as you would counter smoke or island camping. (and yes I have posted this elsewhere, and I'm sure others have thought of much the same solution) ANYTHING firing at you in line of sight AND within YOUR base concealment range gets lit. This has some advantages, it doesn't necessarily ruin stealth firing for everyone If you are being stealth fired upon you can simply go dark unless you are spotted by something else (if you are spotted by something else, the stealth fire coming at you is no worse than a ship in smoke or behind an island, arguably given the range involved it might even be less bad.) In my above example with the Fletcher, the change would not affect you since you weren't "abusing" the stealth mechanics to start with. This change will have solve the demoralizing instances of stealth fire without needing to re-design/balance nearly as many ships If I go back to the earlier Fletcher example, I will only be lit at 9.6 KM by that other player, however, If I was in open water firing at a Yamato (For the sake of this example, full concealment modules/skills/camo) IF I was within the yamato's concealment of 13.5KM and I fired my guns, I would get lit. So all the Yamato has to do is get rid of my spotter(s) and go dark, much the same as he would have to do If I was behind an island or in/behind smoke. This would allow players to use stealth fire as a support role, but would prevent them from effectively using it solo, thus removing the demoralizing effect of the "death by 1000 cuts". This change will have less effect on over all game play, fix the part of stealth firing that causes the most trouble and not completely alter the game-play of so many ships. Some people will now note that this doesn't fix the Zao.... well if the Zao needs a concealment nerf while firing, by all means give it one, balancing a few ships is far less dangerous than changing all of them. PS. The poll has little to do with my proposed solution, it's just to get a feel for how happy/unhappy people are with the 0.6.3 solution
  13. Pensacola Much Improved

    Since the latest patch, concealment on the Pensacola has gotten a real buff (or nerf depending on your POV). Previously the detection range was like 15.4 or 15.6 km which was simply ridiculous (what was Wargaming thinking?) but since the patch its come down a lot. With the Concealment Expert captain skill I am now able to get that down to 11.2 km and with a flag even lower to10.9km. That is awesome - it means you are now not focused fired within the first few minutes of a game because you are the only ship spotted (not fun) and allows you to get into good positions for the battle ahead. I don't think they changed the guns but I am starting to appreciate them now. They are quite accurate even at max range of 15.6km. The HE shell damage is not fantastic when compared to the AP but the fire potential is awesome. I think its 18% fire chance versus 5% in an Atlanta. I ended up getting Demo Expert to boost that even higher. My gripes with her are the turret traverse speed and ROF. Yes I am a spoilt Atlanta captain but I think Adrenaline Rush would really help. Maybe that skill that improves penetration of HE shells? Her AP is so good it makes sense to just switch back tho I wish she had torps like the Atlanta but overall I am having much improved games with her. Finishing consistently in the top half of my team with multiple kills more often. Thanks WOWs for making this ship a lot more fun to play.
  14. Firing from Smoke

    Ok lets talk about the most ridicules thing in the game, 2-3 Ships alternating Smoke use and siting there blasting the HE Spam, REALLY Lets think about this, Smoke = concealment is great, I agree 100% DD and some CC ships should have it. But Smoke or most any concealment works both ways you should not be able to see anything to include aiming your guns from the middle of a smoke cloud, you should be pretty much be blind. Yes I know you cant spot, and you can only see ships that are being spotted buy another ship, But you should not be able to see anything at all, you in the middle of a thick Smoke cloud. Keep the smoke let it be used as a great form of concealment, just turn off the visibility from smoke.
  15. While ideas on this are scattered in various guides, I thought I would try to get some overall opinions on preferences for tier 8-10 cruisers, especially with changes that have occurred and changes that are clearly afoot. Three questions: 1) Now that CE is a four point skill, post-0.6.0, is there any tier 8-10 cruiser on which you would NOT take CE at all - whether first or on a second/third pass? 2) On which tier 8-10 cruisers would you NOT take the Steering Gears 2 upgrade followed by the Concealment upgrade? On which, for instance, would you take double steering (SGM2 and SGM3, dispensing with Concealment), or Propulsion in place of the first...or something else? 3) Now the bonus round. Let us assume that at some point not too far off WG decides to get rid of stealth firing from open water without smoke - a significant capability of ships like Chapayev and Zao - and let us assume that they do this by adjusting gun blooms (like the German DDs) rather than base concealment. Would any of your builds or answers to #1 or #2 change? Thanks in advance - I'm looking for some guidance and some advance planning!
  16. Amagi Equipment and Skill Advice

    I just got the Amagi a few minutes ago, free-xp'd the first hull and engine. I'm looking over her stats - her speed is nimble, her guns look lovely, her armor's to be expected but... her concealment is surprisingly low. I've looked around and I've yet to find a guide on how to kit out the Amagi so I have decided to ask the legion that is this forum: How do you guys kit out your Amagi? I'm pondering either going secondary build - though I suspect the Germans do that better - or going for full concealment and trying to play her as a battlecruiser and work with the faster ships around. Before taking Concealment Expert into consideration (I only have a 13 pt. captain for my IJN BB), I can already get her concealment down to 15km I think. Or is there something better?
  17. You know what I'm talking about. You zoom in on an enemy ship (usually a DD) and just as you are about to pull the trigger *POOF!* it's gone! Is that due to atmospheric conditions? Or the Concealment Skill? Or a bit of both? There are some ships that just vanish 95% of the time like the Fujin.
  18. Balance ideas for Radar

    I can't count how many times I've been using a smokescreen in my Benson and all of a sudden I get tagged by radar and get blown out of the water. This is a huge problem for DDs who can have their position immediately discovered and focused by everything in range. Legitimate destroyer tactics like island ambushes and smoke-screening lose their value in the face of this fire-and-forget counter. I am not arguing that radar should be removed from the game. I do genuinely think it can balance DD-CA engagements well. However, it is too overpowered in its current form. Here are a few ideas to balance it more. The ship using Radar should be immediately visible to any ship it detects If I'm going to be spotted while in a smokescreen by a cruiser using radar, I'd like to be able to at least return fire a little before my rear-end sinks to the bottom. This would also give DD captains time to launch torpedoes before they sink, forcing a cruiser captain to pick their engagements more carefully. Reduce the duration of radar. Not range, duration Radar shouldn't last long enough for a single cruiser to sink a full-health same-tier destroyer. Hurt badly, yes, but not sink it. The Des Moines's fast firing main guns coupled with it's 40 second radar duration makes it practically immune to destroyers, leaving only same tier battleships as an effective counter for it. Every ship that uses Surface Search Radar should be limited to 20 seconds. A ship using radar to fire into a smokescreen should have an increased shell dispersion of 10% Having radar was a huge advantage for the US and British navies during WW2, but the technology was still in its infancy and couldn't fire with total accuracy. Prime targeting conditions in ship-to-ship engagements used a combination of radar and visual targeting. A ship that could only use one of these two methods was at a disadvantage. From a balance standpoint, this idea would allow cruisers to look into smokescreens and fire at destroyers, but wouldn't completely negate smokescreens as a strategic defensive option for destroyer captains. I hope Wargaming will consider these options and implement a few of them. What are your ideas for balancing Radar. Or let me know why you think radar is fine as it is.
  19. My 2nd Cpt is...

    Anyone tried out this build before? How is it?
  20. Exploit or Tactic?

    I have noticed a number of instances when cruisers or destroyers at a range that I should be able to spot (5-6km) wedge up in the shadow of an island and lob shells at me from concealment. The game doesn't reveal their positions for return fire, and it's impossible to tell what ship is shooting. Now don't get crazy on me. I'm not proposing changes, complaining about anything, or getting ridiculous. I'm curious about the general sense of how forum people perceive this within the game. Is this one of those "oh wow, you found a terrific way to shoot out of concealment" things, or is this one of those "oh, you found a way to exploit the game mechanics" things? If this is a legitimate tactic, which ships do you use to do it? What characteristics allow them to do this? And how do they spot ME for shooting? (The last time this happened, I wasn't spotted from surface or aircraft.)
  21. Concealment Value

    The numbers you are using for concealment value's are wrong. The concealment system mod put in a Iowa will bring it down from 23 to 33. Giving it a spotting range of 16.0 after install. According to the Concealment numbers you guy's obviously made up. The real value it will give you after the concealment mod is put in the ship gives it a 14.2 concealment. Witch is wrong according to your made up numbers. When you guys finely fix all the issues in this game. And were no longer your guinea pig's. You better reward us for the time, headaches and money we put in this game. And I don't mean a Ter 2 pieces of crap ship we will never play. I mean a real reward, like 500 gold, 2mill credits, free time or something. Because this [edited]getting pretty bogus. To be honest I don't agree with most of the concealment value's in the game at all. Most should be nerf and a lot should be buff. I think its just another thing showing how bias this game is to other nations .
  22. Shooting over Islands

    Quick question for the peanut gallery. So you know how when ships are targeted/visible you can aim at the water behind an island and the game automatically assumes you do not want to hit the island and want to hit the ship? Is there a way to do this manually without the ship being targeted/visible so you can fire at the area behind an island without hitting it? Most instances where I've had problems are that split second after the ships disappear so it may just be that the transition period is a little rough, but I would like to know if there is something I can do to improve it all the same.
  23. So, AZ, being very similar to NM, allows 12km concealment, which is only slightly worse than NM, NC and Tirpitz. (You can mod your ship any way you want) This makes AZ's excellent shot groupings all the more deadly, as you can now open up from 12km, which is almost impossible to dodge, if the red ship is giving a broadside. The one downside to this build, is that AZ isn't all that good at brawling. Very slow turrets and 35s reload aren't exactly brawling material. If you whiff your opening salvo for whatever reason, expect to get into an engagement where only one will get to stay afloat. This is especially true if they have torps that force you to weave, which can cause them to out maneuver your turrets. Vs. Cruisers T4/5/6/7 - Works excellently, especially if you have friendly help to finish them off. T8 - Pick your engagements. Against full health and anything but NO, ill advised, as they can bounce your 356mm if they decide to rush you. Vs. Battleships T4/5 - Works well enough, but they most likely won't go down in a single salvo and the maps tend to be very small, which doesn't allow you to fully utilize all the benefits of 12km concealment. T6/7 - Mostly the same as T4/5, but it's typically better to start engaging from a distance. T8 - The BBs of this tier are squishier than T7, if you can hit their broadside, so depending on situation, you could attempt it. But keep in mind their guns overmatch your armor, so you better have a backup plan if your team can't sink them fast. Vs. Destroyers All tiers - Fire your guns at them, as soon you get spotted and they are also spotted. 12km should be close enough to nail DDs. 12 guns with good groupings is mostly impossible to weave through, unless it's a Sims.
  24. If you take a look at concealment bonus that type 1, 5 and 6 provide it states you get a 3% reduction on all of them to detect-ability by sea. However this is not the case, here is an example (using my pensacola for this): Type 1: 14.7 km detect-ability, concealment rating of 44 Type 5: 15.2 km detect-ability, concealment rating of 42 Type 6: 14.7 km detect-ability, concealment rating of 44 As you can see, unless the values are supposed to be different, type 5 camouflage is not providing the correct concealment modifier and needs to be fixed.