Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'smoke'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 109 results

  1. So a few months ago before I quit playing, I was enjoying and almost done with the RN cruiser line. My brother and I came back to the game to find these big smoke changes. I was consistently top 3 in points on my team in the Neptune before the smoke nerf. I have yet to have a good game since returning. Neptune has been hit way too hard by this smoke nerf. The boat can barely hit anything at 10km, but now it's detected at 6.6km in smoke. Why? It usually results in an instant delete since tier 9 is always tier 10 matches. I wasn't happy to find my Kutuzov pooped on either. I mean it has 152mm guns and now can be seen in smoke at 7.7km. How does that make sense? DD's don't have to get close at all and boom, you're gone from their BB pals 20km away. I am more angry about the Neptune though because it has to get so close to the enemy to do ANYTHING, and I'm so close to the Minotaur, but not sure if I even want to spend that kind of credits now. I'm aware it has been a while since the smoke nerf and all of this has probably been said many times by now, but has Wargaming said anything about it? It looks like they need to help the RN cruisers in some way since they crapped on them, Neptune the hardest.
  2. I dipped into a few DD random battles last night. Didn't go all that well, but it got me thinking about smoke. Are there "patterns" used to lay smoke to make it more effective/efficient? Is it a strategy to lay smoke to hide friendly ships rather than just hide yourself?
  3. I asked here: TL;DR - why can't we see smoke when zoomed in, that is, in scope mode? tiafyc
  4. I cannot see enemy/friendly smoke through the scope view. Pop out to 3rd party POV - there it is. Zoom in via scope mode - can't see it. It's causing me issues when driving a DD - working the reds, don't see any dd (Fletcher for example) then bam, there he is at 4.9km. He had to be in smoke but none was visible. Anyone else? tiafyc
  5. A Bismark is in or behind smoke and hasn't fired the main guns. A red dd is spotted 8 km out by another ship. Bismark goes CNTRL + LMB (secondaries main focus) . Can the dd spot him at that point?
  6. A thought on Smoke

    I had this idea today, and forgive me if this has been brought up before, but a cursory search through the forum brought me no similar results. Please note, I am not proposing this as a change that should be implemented, just as a mechanics thought that I would like to hear feedback for- it's a random idea. I had it while playing my Fiji earlier today and getting cussed out by the Reds in chat for firing from smoke. What if smoke mechanics also accounted for firing from smoke beyond detection, by reducing smoke time each volley? Especially if it was classified by ship type, so say a BB firing from smoke reduces the smoke time by a large number, but cruisers less so, and so on. While the instant reaction is likely "Hell no", hear me out for a moment. If such a mechanic was introduced, and then smoke times were buffed across the board, this might introduce potential tactics like smoking an area to conceal an approach instead of making a concealed firing nest. Maybe there could be an additional dispersion value added for firing through smoke at spotted targets- Maybe this would make smoke slightly more effective against Radar or Hydro as a counter, instead of a hard Rock-Paper-Scissors? Additionally, this could add to the utility of spotting mechanics via planes looking over the smoke. It would allow smoke to be used like a resource handed out by DDs (And some Cruisers). Just a few random thoughts- Again, I did not see anything like this in my forum search, and was wondering what the community take on it could be. Happy hunting, Smallfuzzykitten
  7. I could post screen shots if needed, but for some reason Harekaze with 100mm guns has a 2.5km detection range when firing from smoke. Akizuki is 2.4. I'm not saying this is a big deal or anything but Harekaze has a 5.4 minimum concealment and Akizuki a 5 9. They should be equal at least or give the Harekaze a 2.3 km smoke detection range while firing, from smoke.
  8. If you ask for smoke

    I'll most likely give it to you. That doesn't mean every time you ask I'll give it to you though so be advised.
  9. Lets talk about a few things

    Hello everyone. I'd like to see some debate on some topics that I feel are in need of discussion, hence this thread. The questions are. 1. Will Pan-Asian dds phase out Japanese dds in terms of torpedo effectiveness? (The exception being the Akizuki) 2. Should radar/hydro go through islands or not? (I feel this is a big no but i've seen lots of debate over this one elsewhere) 3. Are the smoke changes that were implemented really that debilitating to cruisers? 4. Should the US's CV loadouts really be reduced to one single loadout? (This is huge no for me and I don't even play American CV) 5. Should the HE pen on the British bb's be lowered to 1/6 pen? What do you guys think of these?
  10. Spent the afternoon watching videos on USN and IJN dds. I was lucky enough that BoraHarzaGobuchul invited me to division with him for a couple of games. For those of us with less experience (1500 battles), it is a real solid when someone with 15,000+ battles takes the time to teach. We really appreciate it. We divisioned up with 2 Nicholas dds. He did most of the damage, I was the wingman. I have a tactics question when in a dd wolfpack and the use of smoke. In one of the videos from iChase or one of the other WOWs gurus, they talked about defensive and offensive smoke. I understand defensive smoke (hide when spotted). I'm not getting the concept of offensive smoke. How does that work in practice? Also, what is the best strategy to use when working with another dd? Should one dd work ahead of the other and pop smoke so the other can come up undetected? Any gameplay examples would be much appreciated. I want to work on getting better so that you dd experts invite me to division more often and don't consider me a liability.
  11. Curious. With the recent update about the affects that smoke has on various ships, I am curious how can a Battleship remain invisible after firing, 30 second reload, fire again, and still remain invisible, never being spotted? Curious.
  12. USN CA viability after Smoke nerf?

    As the proud owner of a Des Moines and fan of the USN Cruiser line as a whole, I've always found the ability to creep up alongside my Destroyers and forcefully remove all opposition from a Cap circle to be one of the most fun and rewarding things to do in my USN ships. However, as of late, Wargaming has decided to nerf Smoke- any ship firing behind a wall of smoke is now detected as it would if the smoke wasn't there to begin with, and firing your guns inside smoke now reveals your position from varying range depending on the ship in question. What I'm asking is: Is there a real reason to continue using American CAs instead of German DDs? With smoke being butchered as it is, a DD just has to sneak relatively close to a smoke screen and then the ship will get seen just for firing. If it's a DD, the Hydro goes up and the target is lit up much longer than it would be by Radar. The German DDs are also much much safer and effective in terms of scouting and capping, and we always still have access to the USSR Cruisers if we need DPM and Radar from a somewhat safer ship.
  13. Well as a DD I find myself rendered all most useless. Smoke is only good for firing torps. A DD no longer an get points using is guns unless it wants to die. I notice ships seem to be able to easily dodge the torps also. I will keep trying to do better with the new prams but if what happened to me in last battle happens to other DD players than I don't think running DD will be much fun.
  14. Just curious if anyone has done any testing on detection ranges while firing secondary's from smoke and holding main battery fire. Does it work as before and is 2km or caliber based more in the 2.5km range like DDs.? Example Biz rolls up in smoke holding fire and undetected and cuts loose on enemy's that are detected with secondary's only, what's the spotting distance?
  15. 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.
  16. So with a spotted range of 7-11km for top tier CAs in smoke (except Brits), how are they supposed to support a DD fighting for cap? When playing radar, I usually ask the local DD for smoke near cap (preferably next to island to retreat to) and radar the whole cap. Light up the DD and kill him so DD can cap. Then use remaining smoke time to burn BBs before pushing forward or retreating. Now, as soon as I fire, the entire red fleet will try to kill me because the DD I'm shooting at will most likely be within my 7-11km spotting range. And in a radar CA, I draw a crapload of fire when spotted. I think this whole smoke spotting change will simply lead to a lot more camping/hiding. I mean really, you don't want to stick your bow out and get deleted in the first 2 min, so what do you do? Wait for the DD to do the spotting? Radar the cap, but don't fire? Hide behind islands like everyone else and be useless? I like all the other changes in 6.12 (50% bonus, clan battles, rebalance Brit BBs, DW torps, etc.), but these new spotting ranges for CAs in smoke is going to affect game play in a huge way.
  17. Smoke change question

    Is the smoek change gonna be effective liek the cyclone is if im spotted at 5.3 km can that guy at 12 km actually see me if so then this change is dumb if not and the guy at 5.3 can see me and the guy a 6 km cant im all for it clarification please?
  18. Catharsis II: Admiral Spoor — No Sir, Notser I've decided it's not worth recording myself doing another rambling rant, but I suppose I am reviewing a single quarter of the entire content. I must disclose, I felt at first Notser had redeemed himself significantly since the 6.11 patch videos and I am glad he will be enjoying an event in Corpus Cristi at the USS Lexington. The problem is still the generalizations and contradictions he makes without paying heed in part to first, how his perspective influences company policy (potentially, but not in fact. I attempt to cover that). Additionally, the oversight to continue to insist that he does not have a dog in the fight, then to proceed to breakdown the game experience and the ways it frustrates him bother me. So below is my outline point by point. I have another thread on it: And I have a post concerning Zoup's recent inane approach to the game as well Untitled Ep. 61 - 6.12, Internet, USS Lexington Clan Warfare, 6.12 2:35 "How's the game gonna play” Probably complete garbage and HE-Cruiser kiting, but what do we know, you said previously "Go ahead, try, like that's not happening already" in your 6.11 review I'm glad we can all afford now to be rampant hypocrites since our audiences won't hold us to scrutiny after we've forgiven ourselves by making enough decent content in between inane and flawed statements that no one will catch us. 2:40 "I'm extremely happy that I'm on the sidelines" Except by definition you, much less literally the large video CCs are not on the sidelines ii. Never mind that the changes to foster quote, "Brain-dead design and game-play are largely influenced by feedback from CCs that seem not to represent the community not contribute to it's growth. That's a subjective statement; yes, but it's worth noting you wanted this change most to break up stagnant ranked play (6.11 review) yet now mysteriously you claim you have no stake 2:48 "l would be really frustrated if I really cared" Shall I play you segments of "What's Up With Me" and your "6.11 Review" concerning how frustrated you were with "Us" In this case, you may call me out for pretending I represent the larger community. I do not, but at least I understand or will admit up front my frustrations I will take out on the players, but not by asking the game to be changed to get rid of these players or the tactics they use. 2:58 "There are players that spent so much time leveling up their CVs" So I'm guessing to uphold the anti-BB narrative we'll over look those too ii. Also, am I the only one who's getting the weird vibe soon you all will be coming for our carriers too? Strange thing to point out that both CVs and DDS are extremely important, assuming I guess that we all recall your critique from Clan Wars prior to this video yet tacitly overlook BBS being removed mostly and CVs being killed off as collateral damage to suit your narratives. 3:05 — 3:17 "It's going to look nothing like any competitive mode . .. we've ever seen" I don't know, I think it will look almost exactly like S6 and S7 of Ranked, even given that Tier VI battles of S7 had more battleships, that was the Shinonome, Farragut, Cleveland meta, whereas S6 was Belfast, Atlanta, Shiratsuyu. I suspect it will be equally, if not more cancerous, because [edited] BBS and [edited] Cvs if they make the game hard for anyone. 3:18-3:24 "And I think that's fantastic, I hate [current] ranked play, I think it's boring" Let's say the argument CCs have "no" influence toward WGs decisions is true, then we're looking strictly at the content of his words towards the audience; ii. This is a hypocritical and leading on statement to present considering earlier you said: 2:40 "I'm extremely happy that I'm on the sidelines" So neither of us can accurately clam we're on the sidelines anymore given we're both paying customers The only difference is where as I am not funny and charming, and you happen to be that, which is subversive AND have an audience of thousands that will almost follow you to death regardless of what you say or do (with one or two exceptions that I pleasantly may point to). 3:32 "l don't want to sit in smoke with a 1 to 1 objective" I believe this calls for two clips Jingles, "l believe they call this Teamwork" Any of Notser's content prior to "6.11 Review" emphasizing Teamwork RedLetterMedia, "It's always good to show contempt of your audience" 3:40-3:46 "Sorry, I just hate that . . . I have better things to do with my life" And the rest of us don't? Also if you truly did, I'd imagine your quote from 6.11 wouldn't be so much "It's my smoke, I should dictate who uses it" would be more along the lines of Why are people blaming players for bad play rather than the bad mechanics of the game. Then again Flamu does that every day as of late but assume it's all targeted toward casuals. I also like how you dropped sorry three times, like that deflects the clear contempt you have of you know the people that no longer watch you I still do because I; on the other hand; do not believe the CC's have no influence over WG And in my case, I imagine even if you or other CC's say WG listens poorly and implements misunderstood or misguided patches at CC's behest, the point is even once in a while if you repeat the same lies enough, WG will listen 3:54 "l think competitive should feel fast" Make them all battleships and spawn them within 13 km of each other. ii. CG:GO Mode engaged, may the twitchiest players win. Oh, and even good play is balanced in part by RNG even at that rage, that will make your matches damned fast Also gets rid of the risk aversion issue of dealing with literally everything else. I know why you didn't suggest this though, that would ruin your anti-BB narrative Also I understand my suggestion is patently absurd; however, if you want fast, this would help resolve that blasted issue for you. 4:00 — 4:03 "It should reward aggressive play" No, and this is not actually a matter of opinion, it should reward the play the company wants. You of all people should understand this Even if say "well profit motive or the design of the company is not paramount", fine, then the game should reward "Intelligent" play, and not all aggressive moves are intelligent Ask Field Marshal Haig or Josef Joffre as to what unwarranted amounts of aggression got them They felt in their opinions just as much that defensive postures shouldn't be rewarded. Granted one's a philosophy of war, the other is a philosophy of a game; my point is that abject statement of opinion is fairly stupid and underthought or analyzed 4:05 —4:30 Largely irrelevant rambling about how it sucks that someone slow-plays an advantage to win something My only point here will be I guess he's not sports fan. It must drive him nuts to see a team in football up 3 to O start running the ball to chew clock for 15 minutes. Clearly the team that got their field goal should not be rewarded with a win for conservative, albeit victorious play I dare him to watch Nebraska vs. Texas A&M 2010, I bet he would wish Texas A&M investigated for squeaking out their win 9 to 6 for slow rolling most of the game How much more like CS:GO would you like Warships to be? 4:40 "l would like to see some sort of extra reward for pushing Then you'd need a fundamental change in the game Never mind there is crazy base XP rate for capping now, but that does not change who does or does not kill you. Or even better, get rid of cover, and bring back ocean, make cover and concealment irrelevant, oh and may DD's and CA's able to survive more torps Then everyone will want to knife fight, because there's almost no consequence to bad play, because you can survive it. That being said your counter, to yourself in straw-man fashion is this 4:50 Strawman "Their counter to my hatred of it, well I need to get damage" Never mind that's your counter to yourself, and only I think morons like Flamu would say something so inane as the one-point to summarize everything, you miss the point in analyzing your own risk-reward structure I cannot recall if it was you, iChase, or Flamu who pointed it out, but ultimately "Influence" wins you game. The longer you stay alive, the more opportunities are afforded to you to try to change the tide of the game. Day 9-Rule; If you're ahead, you help your team get farther head If you're behind, you help your team deal damage to win or secure points on the flank if you're a DD. That being said, note, being ALIVE is perhaps the MOST influential psychological reinforcing factor, it should come as no surprise that defensive play, conservative approaches are how players good AND bad choose to play Somehow though you hate the fundamental structure of the game and ask that "We" simply learn a new way to play, not you. Maybe this game isn't' for you then. I seem to recall hearing that directed to myself a few times as of late. 5:00 "Nobody wants to play for the 20 minutes . . . If I can't win it, I certainly [won't] lose it" Your argument should have stopped there, that's perfectly fine and accurate statement alone You don't want to be flamed for losing a game Most would like to contribute, but if you can't, just don't throw the game iChase I believe has something on this called "How to Throw a Game" ii. Alas, the rambling continues 5:20 "l don't think that should be the entire game, I think that should be a type or a line" What's the point of a game if you can't win Even better, what's the point of a game if you can't lose? Yes, you can say Co-op and Operations (which removed casual filthy Tier Vs) you may basically never lose, but they possess that single-player edge challenge just enough to be entertaining without being cancerous or pedantic But this is an MMO, winning is everything, your rewards, your XP, your stats, literally almost everything lives and dies on that in the PvP world, so I am not sure where this reasoning is coming from. 5:37 Strawman "l don't want every line to play the same" Never mind that lets say you're over generalizing, by definition still, they don't play the same CVs are supposed to be in the back since they only have planes. BB's, can push but get flamed for over extending, so they have to use cover and hope the dice-roll of the knife fights between DD's and CA's go well\ Light vessels have to use smoke, cover, and planning to creep upon an objective and use sonar or radar to dictate the terms of the fight and either flush the enemy from cover or kill someone early to get the snowball rolling that permits BB's to face-punch people like boxers That's the IDEAL scenario, which almost NEVER happens So what's the reasonable alternative if a player or a team loses literally all ability to dictate the terms of engagement If you lose initiative, guess what you are on immediately . . .the defensive. 5:50 “I'd rather teams make 10 different mistakes and it be back and forth" Are you just appealing to the "Casuals" at this point to win you brownie points? Let's assuming exciting to watch meant anything to exciting to play Imagine how frustrating mysteriously it would be to competitors if you had to play perfectly and you still get back and forths. Imagine how frustrating it is given the current mechanics of the game to play normally and still be called a potato. You're basically asking for one of two things Mistakes are punished ruthlessly but by design engine, the other team will make mistakes somehow Or, mistakes have no consequence, so no one has that risk aversion the reinforces development of positioning knowledge That way you can face-roll to victory regardless and have an exciting looking game, but exactly no agency almost in its outcome. As for the false-dichotomy of my set up, I "imagine" another option would be assuming the generalization was casuals tend to make a lot of mistakes on either side would behave smaller maps with team-death match rather than capping or objectives so brawling was strictly speaking necessary, but then you get risk averse game-play anyway without enticing anyone to want to die first Again more CS:GO
  19. Required watching for some.

    0:59 explains how smoke is a torpedo magnet.
  20. In my latest romp around the PTS (test for patch 6.12), I neglected to look at the specifics of everything involved. Imagine my surprise when an allied Shimakaze laid a smoke barrier for me, I ducked my Monarch into it, fired my 18km-ranged guns and saw my detection radius shoot to 17km while firmly inside the smoke. Later that exact same match, the same Shima laid a smoke wall for 3 BBs trying to take a cap point. I fired my guns from stealth BEHIND the smoke this time, and somehow still got detected by surface, despite the smoke being between us very firmly. The enemy DDs were more towards the back of their team at that point in the match, and the enemy team was far more than 18km away from me everywhere on the map except for the area blocked by the smoke. Let me preface this by saying that I understand BBs firing from smoke is obnoxious, as would be a ship like the Des Moines or Chapayev in the same position. But the bigger issue I'm looking at here is that the Shimakaze played a very team-focused game, and wasn't rewarded for any of it. With smoke the way it is now, a destroyer can do great things for his team, but if detection shoots up like it does on the PTS, I fear that will totally remove team play for another class and render the game even more passive than it already is (ironically worsening the very issue it's trying to fix) by giving Battleships and most Cruisers very little reason to push ahead early alongside the DDs on their team or Division as they'll just get seen anyways, even without the use of Radar. The only fix for 'passiveness' I see at this point in the game is to rework the Carriers like we were promised earlier this year. Their ability to spot so many ships at once at such great distance is what keeps teams mobile and aggressive, pursuing and claiming kills while the CV itself is chipping in to damage enemies caught out of position. The moment CVs stopped being common, we can see a sudden increase in camping. There's nothing to counteract it anymore, either through scouting or heavy damage on camping ships, and unfortuanately, nerfing smoke like this is just going to promote players to hang back even further than they do already.
  21. Firing into smoke

    Hey, old salts, Could someone please explain how to effectively aim into smoke? I might hit 1 shot in 50 if I'm lucky, yet when I'm in smoke, the enemy seems to zero me far more often. Where, relative to the muzzle flash, do you aim? If anyone has screenshots to illustrate, that would be fantastic. Or, if you know of a video explaining it, please post. I've looked on youtube, and although there are a few showing it being done, all seem to be just bragging vids with no explanation of what they're doing. Thanks! ~Skyhooker
  22. With the recent admission that smoke is being abused in a way that Wargaming had not intended, i feel there needs to be a serious change made to the MM. this comes from a similar experience that came up in World of Tanks. Artillery used to be able to be deployed with a maximum of 5 per team, this issue was extremely irritating and was changed by WG to remove the boring camp style game-play. well unfortunately the camp style game-play is a disease that is infecting WOWS. within the past week i have noticed that Battleships are doing nothing but hiding behind rocks and are not fulfilling their role as the heavy armor on the front line. then i started looking at the team layout on both sides of the team. 90% of my matches this week have had 5 DDs per side. no only is 5 DDs completely unnecessary, but it is completely broken. DDs have smoke that is already being abused, but along side that, we have cruisers that have smoke that are assisting the DDs and it is causing gameplay to become extremely stale and drawn out. yes we know that smoke is broken, but the up coming patch is not going to fix it at all. DDs need to be restricted to a max of 3 per team to reduce the abuse of the broken smoke mechanic. until smoke is no longer a mobile pillbox, DDs need to be put in check.
  23. Well they've nerfed smoke... and even fewer people will play DDs now. Radar was meant to counteract sitting in smoke, but now that all classes are more visible when firing out of smoke, the purpose of radar is greatly reduced. We should nerf radar since there are now other nerfs to smoke. There is now no excuse not to fix radar. GOD VISION IS A BROKEN MECHANIC. Also: BB Weekend = everyone plays BBs DD Weekend = everyone targets DDs (edited to clarify my point)
×