Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'concealment'.
Found 4 results
I been playing for a few months and im not getting something about concealment. OK the dotted line on the mini map, you shoot and it gets bigger, stay quiet it gets smaller, now when its smaller and i dont see any opponents ships within it am I invisable or what? seems even if im quiet and the circle is smaller I still get hit like they see me no problem. This is on a cruzer. Now if im in my DD I get creamed, I have a Jaguar which they say is stealthy but I get creamed if im anyplace remoatly in their range ... then say im in a cruzer in my cap... how in H...ll can they sneak into my cap with me sitting in the middle of it and me still not see them, no smoke no nothing just them cruzing right in. If someone can really try to explain all this because im not getting it. Got nobody to ask so I thought id try here. Thanks... Crzy Train If anyone wants to join a low key clan we just do naval battles just for fun we are only 2 of us so far, you get in on ground floor. its -ICE- use the dashes
Air squadrons <> Surface ships - if you can see, you can be seen. A suggestion to replace the current irrational and unintuitive concealment/spotting ratios of airpower / surfacepower in WOWS. Currently, we have a situation where, an airplane, can spot a 100 metre long dd at only 2.5 km on a clear day, yet that same 10 metre long airplane (probably shorter) can be spotted by a dd 10 km away/. This is an absurd necessity of gameplay enjoyment, yet by defying the laws of physics (and the speed of light which is supposed to be a constant, not a variable), makes my head spin and causes me some nausea (air sickness). My proposal is as follows. Airplanes and surface vessels, should, on a clear day, spot one another, simultaneously. The spotting distance should vary according to the displacement of the surface ship and the size (number of planes) of an airsquadron, to ensure some measure of fairness. (not wholly accurate physics wise, but I think, an improvement nonetheless). Spotting distance might, for example, be 5 km Asashio / Lex TBF Avenger Squadron, rising to a hard upper limit (to keep things reasonable) of 12 km for Yamato / Mid BTD squadron. Illustration (my drawing skills are noteworthy as you can see) The (simplified) idea is, if you can see a target, you can be seen, in return, at the same distance/time/ This seems fair and appropriate as a solution to the problem of vision and CVs. But is it enough to prevent CVs from easily spotting the entire map? No it isn't, I agree in advance with many of your protests in comments. So I havea further solution, clouds. Unlike smoke, clouds would not obstruct the vision/spotting of other ships, but clouds would temporarily hide surface ships from air squadrons, and in return, also hide air squadrons, from surface ships (though not necessarily from AA) Another magnificent illustration (the clouds are the squiggly bits) For the sake of tweeks, camouflage might give a surface ship a slight delay in being spotted, after spotting an air squadron. But a timed delay, not a distance delay. As for clouds, they would need to be dynamic, or at least scrolling across the map at a sufficient speed to prevent abuse by CVs and/or surface ships. Spotting and concealment would therefore be intermittent, limiting the amount of focus fire enabled by a CV which pursues, for example, a dd.
SpeedySpeedBoi posted a topic in CruisersNow, I have coined this question in my head for some time, and I would like to know what the community’s views on this topic is. Cruisers are generally “food” for battleships – but, it can go either way, given a skilled player is at the helm of the cruiser. Battleships are known for their alpha strike capabilities, being able to either one-shot, or serverely cripple cruisers with one salvo. Of course, this is all by-chance, and it is never consistent. Cruisers are known to be the “all-around” type of ship, to which they can both be beaten by any other class of ship, yet still have the potential to beat them back. Cruisers are rather squishy ships, and to which they almost-all of them have large, above-water citadels; complimented with weak bow and aft armour schemes. Since a battleship has the potential to either one-shot or severely cripple a cruiser, as it gives broadside, even often when properly angled, is it acceptable that some battleships are able to out-spot cruisers? Or even, some cruisers have worse concealment ratings than battleships of the same tier. A cruiser often within its detection range of a battleship, is a dead cruiser. And if it tries to turn away, the cruiser is likely to take some serious punishment. I will use T10 ships, as an example, since I primarily play T10: Moskva’s lowest-possible detection range is 13.8 Km, and Hindenburg tops-out at 12.7 Km. Both cruisers have among the worst concealment for cruisers at T10. Yamato’s lowest-possible detection range is 13.5 Km, Montana tops-out at 13.4, and Conqueror with 11.8 Km. All of which out-spot Moskva, and only Conqueror is able to out-spot Hindenburg. Moskva has a large, squishy citadel, to which she is bound for dead, if she presents such a broadside to any T10 BB. Hindenburg has an armoured citadel, but she still can be punished hard; albeit, not as-easily as Moskva, and other T10 cruisers. However, both of these cruisers are able to out-DPM any T10 battleship, and given that you have a skilled player using them, they could single-handedly take a T10 BB out. Granted, that is a rare occurence, and it is very difficult to pull-off. That being said, cruisers have the potential to solo battleships, but battleships, more-often than not, have the ability to deal with cruisers. A low-skilled battleship captain can deal with a low-skilled cruiser captain, and a low-skilled battleship captain can still give a highly-skilled cruiser captain some trouble. In my opinion, I see that it is not fair for a generally-superior type of ship to have the ability to out-spot cruisers of the same tier; as the majority of cruiser players are not skilled-enough to deal with battleships, and even the skilled ones still find low-skilled battleships to be troublesome. Cruisers may have the potential to deal with BB’s, but I do not believe that it is right for cruisers to have worse concealment than ships that can outright delete them; regardless of the tier. However, I feel that this issue is better resolved by either universally buffing cruiser concealment, or by only buffing the concealment of cruisers that have worse concealment than BB’s. There are exceptions, of course. Cruisers that have concealment 10 Km or less should not receive this buff, as this would make a destroyer’s life increasingly difficult, making spotting a bigger task. If BB’s just had their concealment directly nerfed, I feel that this would just give players even more incentive to sit back, as well as the nerf would make BB’s less fun to play, overall. Some may disagree with me, but I would rather not have BB concealment be nerfed. I enjoy playing my fair-share of battleship, too. No one likes being spotted from outer space. Now, again, my question: Should it be acceptable for any cruiser to have worse concealment than any BB of the same tier?
NeutralState posted a topic in General Game DiscussionCE is essential for all class of ships?