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
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 6 results

  1. freggo

    Camo suggestion

    What do you think about giving camouflages an effect on concealment. After all, THAT is what they where to do IRL. Depending on cost of the camo a different degree of improvement to a ships base concealment could be given.
  2. Tank_Grrl

    New Spotting Ranges

    Game mechanics changes have been announced for 0.11.2 If all ships can now be spotted at new ranges, how will this affect concealment? Do I need to change my plans working up the Tech Tree? I've based my entire grind on finding ships that have low detectability ranges and high weapons range. How will these changes affect that? Also, when will the specific values be published? I've watched this old video 100 times. It's as clear as mud (and apparently now irrelevant?): How it Works: Spotting System
  3. Hi... I'm sure I'm not the only person to find the game's hiding system VERY illogical. It doesn't make any sense that I can see all my allies and I can't see an enemy destroyer 7Km away from me. Please change it! I let the engine display ships that are not blocked by map elements (islands) or smoke. It would be MUCH MORE coherent that way. Take advantage of the fact that the submarines will soon enter the game and remove this mechanic, because the submarines, THIS ONES, will go unnoticed very close, indeed. Yes, I know why I can see all my allies at any distance, I've seen the videos regarding concealment and detection and I know the justification regarding "allied communication". But let's face it, this is a pretty lame excuse to justify the current invisibility and detection mechanism. I'm not here with a question about mechanics, I know how it works! My intention here is to try to show that this mechanic is NOT GOOD, it is not fair and it causes imbalance. To start with, my suggestion is to make ships detected by allies not appear as selectable targets in the game, in case our ship doesn't have the "real" visibility. Such detected ships could only appear on the minimap (such as in a cyclone or storm situation, reduced visibility range). It doesn't make sense that I can lock and fire at a target that's behind a mountain. Visibility and shooting ability should be defined by the range of weapons and the physical characteristic of the ship (height of the watchtower) and attributes applied to the captain or to the ship itself. I know a lot of people love the system as it is because they take advantage of it, but it's not the fact that it benefits people that should be the reason the mechanics aren't improved. I like the game a lot, I think it's well balanced, but this concealment system, as it stands, makes it look more like one of those "fantasy games" than a game that even values the world's naval history. I'm SURE that if this mechanic is adjusted to be less fanciful, there will be an increase in terms of game balance and will cause players to adjust their hiding strategies to something more, say, real, logical and coherent, and not just being 7 km away from us, when our vision range is 10 km or more, for example.
  4. 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.
  5. Now, 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?