Dislike Smoke? Why not reduce torp visibility in smoke to almost nothing?

[Lensar]

If smoke is such a problem, why not reduce torp detection range in smoke to like 5%?

[More_Witches]

I thought that's already how it was unless you're running hydro or someone outside the smoke spots them for you

[Kapitan_Wuff]

Kinda under the same impression as @More_Witches. Personally I don't think smoke is a problem at all, it has its disadvantages to go along with its advantages and their are a ton of counters too it. 

[Lensar]

Detection is reduced, but not by as much as it should be. It's maybe 33% currently? I'd rather see it at like 5% or 10%.

[Krautjaeger]

I've always said, why not drastically reduce accuracy for ships inside the smoke. Sure you stay hidden, but your shells would land all over the place the further out you aim. I've got nothing against smoke, I can both be in it and tackle the issue when others are in there, but it has always just felt odd to pop smoke and then have the same accuracy and visibility as when outside the smoke.

[Canadatron]

1 minute ago, Krautjaeger said:

I've always said, why not drastically reduce accuracy for ships inside the smoke. Sure you stay hidden, but your shells would land all over the place the further out you aim. I've got nothing against smoke, I can both be in it and tackle the issue when others are in there, but it has always just felt odd to pop smoke and then have the same accuracy and visibility as when outside the smoke.

You cannot see outside of smoke without spotting help.

[MrKilmister]

5 minutes ago, Canadatron said:

You cannot see outside of smoke without spotting help.

 

I agree that there isn't sufficient penalty for camping in smoke. 

[Pope_Shizzle]

3 minutes ago, Canadatron said:

You cannot see outside of smoke without spotting help.

 

Except you can.  You can proximity spot all day long.  Smoke is irrelevant to proximity spotting.  

[More_Witches]

1 minute ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

 

Except you can.  You can proximity spot all day long.  Smoke is irrelevant to proximity spotting.  

Aye, but proximity works both ways for ships themselves

and if you're sitting completely still in smoke, and an enemy torp spread gets close enough to be proximity spotted, then you're not gonna have enough time to avoid them

[Krautjaeger]

7 minutes ago, Canadatron said:

You cannot see outside of smoke without spotting help.

Yeah, but there is always someone who does. Or you can pop a spotting plane. Point is, when you are in the smoke and you see the ships that are lit up you there is no penalty for aiming or visibility at all.

[Lensar]

8 minutes ago, Canadatron said:

You cannot see outside of smoke without spotting help.

 

Yeah. I don't know, an increase in dispersion probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

[tcbaker777]

if your sitting still in a smoke screen and you KNOW there are ships with torps near by, you deserve to be torped, we ALL know that smokes screens are torpedo magnets, you wont get out of the way quick enough anyway, unless your in a RN cruiser with their amazing accerlation, seriously those things go from 0 to full speed in a matter of seconds

[More_Witches]

Just now, Krautjaeger said:

Yeah, but there is always someone who does. Or you can pop a spotting plane. Point is, when you are in the smoke and you see the ships that are lit up you there is no penalty for aiming or visibility at all.

Isn't that the entire point of smoke? Wouldn't they also have to put in aiming penalties for shooting at targets over islands?

[Krautjaeger]

Just now, More_Witches said:

Isn't that the entire point of smoke? Wouldn't they also have to put in aiming penalties for shooting at targets over islands?

Sure, they can. When it comes to WG it is all about a balance between realism and what's fun gameplay. If they decided to go with this, that or both I'm all good with it.

[Doomlock]

Um I would say, no. Destroyers already have enough to worry about in smoke already.

[Canadatron]

1 minute ago, Doomlock said:

Um I would say, no. Destroyers already have enough to worry about in smoke already.

I'd agree with this. There is already enough going against them, you'd have to expect there to be changes (buffs) beyond this due to the impact to their combat efficiency on ships that have smoke.

 

[Xechran]

No. Wrong fix entirely. The problem is smoke is boolean. Its either on or off. Can fix it easily by having it grant a concealment modifier instead.

[SwordSmith95]

Welcome to World of Warships Battleships....

[Slimeball91]

Just now, Krautjaeger said:

Sure, they can. When it comes to WG it is all about a balance between realism and what's fun gameplay. If they decided to go with this, that or both I'm all good with it.

Not only do I have no problem with offensive smoke, I think it is a good game feature.  I like that it takes teamwork to use effectively.  I like that it can be a dynamic to turn a game.  It adds depth to the game.  Sure there are times when both teams smoke up and things so of pause.  So what, when the smoke fades we have a whole new situation to reevaluate and start the fight again. I'd be willing to except changes in smoke if people really felt it was needed for a more enjoyable experience.

Just now, Xechran said:

No. Wrong fix entirely. The problem is smoke is boolean. Its either on or off. Can fix it easily by having it grant a concealment modifier instead.

A concealment modifier could work if a change was really needed.

[Xechran]

2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

A concealment modifier could work if a change was really needed.

 

 

I think it is, and it could be done either simply or by borrowing a bit from current code. Simple version is ships in smoke get -4km (or whatever) modifier to concealment. Complex version borrows the captain skill style, "each class gets % reduction" modifier. Grants a stealth fire window and makes the game more complex. Which is why it won't happen, WG wants a simple game.

[Flashtirade]

I have two problems with smokes, and they're mostly not with the consumable effect but how it ties in with other parts of the game.

 

1. Smoke + Radar on the same ship

Never should have happened. The drawback of smoke is that the user can't see out of it unless someone else is spotting stuff from outside of it. Radar (and to a lesser extent hydro) completely negates this.

 

2. Larger ships using friendly smoke to boost their survivability

While this is good teamwork and use of the tools available, sometimes certain circumstances (like several DDs per side and/or ranked in general) make it induce stale gameplay where both teams create angry clouds and wait for the other to dissipate.

[Lensar]

54 minutes ago, Xechran said:

No. Wrong fix entirely. The problem is smoke is boolean. Its either on or off. Can fix it easily by having it grant a concealment modifier instead.

 

I was about to mock you incessantly for disliking my suggestion, but then I realized you have a 3.72 FTR. So now I'm in agreement with you.

[Lensar]

41 minutes ago, Xechran said:

I think it is, and it could be done either simply or by borrowing a bit from current code. Simple version is ships in smoke get -4km (or whatever) modifier to concealment. Complex version borrows the captain skill style, "each class gets % reduction" modifier. Grants a stealth fire window and makes the game more complex. Which is why it won't happen, WG wants a simple game.

 

Seriously, the simple version would be to make it a flat detection range modifier depending on the quality of the smoke.

 

USN - 50%

IJN - 30%

Others - 40%

 

 

[Slimeball91]

39 minutes ago, Lensar said:

Seriously, the simple version would be to make it a flat detection range modifier depending on the quality of the smoke.

 

USN - 50%

IJN - 30%

Others - 40%

I've not really given this a lot of thought.  Lets say there was a flat -50% modifier, what would that do in game?  It might allow DDs to get close enough to torp the smoke cloud but not really a cruiser, without being detected.  I suppose the tactic would be for a DD to move in and spot the smoke so the team could return fire.  Would the balance of RN cruisers be thrown off by this? 

[DeadIyArT]

3 hours ago, Lensar said:

If smoke is such a problem, why not reduce torp detection range in smoke to like 5%?

Lensar why do you hate dd so much.  all you're suggestions have been that of nerfing class x.  why not learn to play the game?