Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Airglide2

How do WOWS developers determine concealment?

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
702 posts
9,924 battles

I feel like I know the answer but just to be safe, I thought I’d ask the smart minds here first.  Please help me out?  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,464
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,623 posts
521 battles

Completely arbitrary balancing point.

Evidence: Arizona has 100 meters greater concealment when compared to Pensacola.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[CVA16]
Members
2,195 posts
9,669 battles

There was probably a formula at one time using side view and top down size, then, as ramp4ge said, it became an arbitrary number at WG's whim. They may still start with the old formula but feel free to adjust as they desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[DRACS]
Members
3,374 posts

They use the height of the mast as a starting point and then will balance it down if needed. Pensacola being a famous example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
702 posts
9,924 battles
55 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

There was probably a formula at one time using side view and top down size, then, as ramp4ge said, it became an arbitrary number at WG's whim. They may still start with the old formula but feel free to adjust as they desire.

When did this happen, this “choosing-as-we-go” method?  Why not stick to the old method?

 

13 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

They use the height of the mast as a starting point and then will balance it down if needed. Pensacola being a famous example.

I once heard it was the crows nest.  Is this true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
184
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,446 posts
6,486 battles
1 hour ago, Airglide2 said:

I feel like I know the answer but just to be safe, I thought I’d ask the smart minds here first.  Please help me out?  :(

Depends on the ships highest point, I would think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[WOLF2]
Members
240 posts
4,237 battles
1 hour ago, ramp4ge said:

Completely arbitrary balancing point.

Evidence: Arizona has 100 meters greater concealment when compared to Pensacola.

 

It's based on the height of the mast and then adjusted from there (atleast it was in the past).  This is why Pensacola used to have a significantly WORSE concealment compared to Arizona.  That is because Arizona has a mast height of ~150 feet from keel to tip where as Pensacola has a mast height of ~180 feet from keel to tip.  The actual height is dependent on how low WG models these ships sitting in the water.

18 minutes ago, Crusin_Custard said:

Depends on the ships highest point, I would think. 

As stated by others, its the height of the mast (highest point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
188
[R-F]
Members
395 posts
14,343 battles
1 hour ago, Airglide2 said:

I feel like I know the answer but just to be safe, I thought I’d ask the smart minds here first.  Please help me out?  :(

A rare insight into how WoWs team comes up with most of their stats:

giphy.gif

Edited by yacskn
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
832
[SBS]
Members
2,420 posts
2,253 battles
Just now, real_icebeast said:

It's based on the height of the mast and then adjusted from there (atleast it was in the past).

That's right.  DDs cruisers and some BBs get their detection set by mast height.  Then some BBs have their detection set by mast height, then WG cuts that number in half, and that's the final detection value. :Smile_amazed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
457
[LUCK]
Members
1,278 posts
19,115 battles

Actually, they just get :etc_swear: up on vodka- it's an elaborate drinking game that boils down to 1km of detection per shot of vodka.

You have to hope the team for your nation can hold it's liquor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,464
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,623 posts
521 battles
1 hour ago, real_icebeast said:

That is because Arizona has a mast height of ~150

 

Arizona, as she is ingame, had her main mast at 145 feet above the waterline. Her foremast, the same height (above the truck light). When the following document was printed (1934), Arizona did not have a CXAM antenna--nor did she ever, for that matter.

 

http://navsource.org/archives/01/pdf/013939p.pdf

 

Ingame, Arizona has a CXAM antenna that she never had in real life. That antenna adds an additional 17+ feet to her total foremast height, putting it well over Pensacola.

 

Pensacola as represented ingame has a mast height of 149 feet above the waterline, including her CXAM antenna. 

 

So ingame, Arizona would actually be considerably taller if we're going from the mainmast to the highest observable point on the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
702 posts
9,924 battles

Majority of the answers here at basing it at the highest point.  Now, is there some sort of measurement, player made or no, that gives us a general idea what a ship’s should be?  If I am using the IJN BB line for example, am I to flip back and forth each ship and measure a quarter inch on my screen is worth 2-4km difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,858 posts
4,095 battles

they round it up the guys with the poorest vision they can find in the balancing department and say

"how many kilometers of stealth would you give to this ship?"

then they would show a picture of the ship at 4 or 5 meters,let's take october revolution,she is enormous.

"uuuh 13,68km".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
[C-HAG]
Members
481 posts
7,693 battles

In the ancient times 

They said that the ship air detection is determined by length, while surface detection is determined by height

That's why FUSO has terrible detection (high pagoda), 

but right now.. who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,464
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,623 posts
521 battles
6 minutes ago, Plaatduutsch said:

In the ancient times 

They said that the ship air detection is determined by length, while surface detection is determined by height

That's why FUSO has terrible detection (high pagoda), 

but right now.. who knows.

 

They also said that range was determined by the height of the primary firecontrol range finder. 

 

Again, if we look at Arizona and compare it to, say, Indy, we know that's not true. Indy's primary rangefinder is considerably higher above the waterline than Arizona's, yet Arizona has almost 2km more range. 

 

Murmansk and Marblehead have their primary rangefinders at pretty much the same height above the waterline but Murmansk has almost 1km more range.

 

Kaiser's primary FCS is WAY above Arizona's and it has 4km less range.

 

It's another balancing factor that seems to be almost completely arbitrary, even if it was actually based on something at some point in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,218 posts
4,051 battles
1 hour ago, real_icebeast said:

It's based on the height of the mast and then adjusted from there (atleast it was in the past).  This is why Pensacola used to have a significantly WORSE concealment compared to Arizona.  That is because Arizona has a mast height of ~150 feet from keel to tip where as Pensacola has a mast height of ~180 feet from keel to tip.  The actual height is dependent on how low WG models these ships sitting in the water.

As stated by others, its the height of the mast (highest point).

This was how it used to work. Now they look at the stealthiest ship at that tier and class then ask themselves if they think they could better it.

Dev: sir do you think an upgradable 5km detection is too much?

His boss: sure we'll just add more radar.

Dev: but what if we're adding too much radar?

His boss: good point. Stop working on that DD and start working on a counter to radar consumable that we can add to counter the counter we developed to to counter excessive stealth.

Dev: that's why you're the boss

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[CVA16]
Members
2,195 posts
9,669 battles

So in summary... Yes, Virginia, there is a formula for concealment. This can/will be modified as WG sees fit for "balance" reasons just like any other stat for a ship except gun size and number so is just a starting point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles

I'd say that around Launch, there probably was some logic in determining concealment.  USN & IJN BBs for example epitomized this, i.e. IJN with those Pagoda Superstructures had bad concealment.

 

Today?  There's no determining factor, not based on reality.  We have Battleships that are stealthier than Cruisers.  We have IJN Carriers Taiho, Hakuryu stealthier than Cruisers.

 

I await the day when Shinano will be stealthier than Atlanta.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,654 posts
13,535 battles
On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 6:37 PM, Crusin_Custard said:

Depends on the ships highest point, I would think. 

Yeah, one would think that but WG apparently doesn't think that way. There's no way that a BB with a superstructure that rivals the New York City skyline should have better concealment than a Cruiser with a much smaller and shorter superstructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,314 posts
9,414 battles

This was posted a while back during the GZ testing, on facebook.

We would like to clear up the situation with Graf Zeppelin’s detectability.

Main parameters for measuring ship’s detection radius are:
• Full height
• Hull height
• Length
• Width

If we compare Graf Zeppelin to other tier VIII carriers, the detection radius numbers look like this:
Enterprise – 14,58 km
Lexington – 17,46 km
Graf Zeppelin – 16,2 km
Shokaku – 12,42 km

As you can see, german carrier is the second among her immediate peers.
Let’s look at the exact numbers for those ships:

Full height:
Enterprise – 33,11 m
Lexington – 41,64 m
Graf Zeppelin – 37,6 m
Shokaku - 24,58 m

Hull height:
Enterprise – 16 m
Lexington – 17.45 m
Graf Zeppelin – 13.6 m
Shokaku – 9.07 m

Length:
Enterprise – 246.7 m
Lexington – 277.2 m
Graf Zeppelin – 262.5 m
Shokaku – 257.5 m

Width:
Enterprise – 33.3 m
Lexington – 33.7 m
Graf Zeppelin – 31.5 m
Shokaku - 26 m

As you can see Graf Zeppelin is the second in full height and length, while in hull height and width it is the third. Together, these parameters determine the distance from which enemy ships can spot the carrier, and this value is set at 16.2 km. Moreover, this value is influenced not only by detection distance of the ship, but also by how easy it is to identify. Simply put - it's not enough to look at it, you have to know what you're looking at.

And if we examine Graf Zeppelin’s silhouette, it does stand out significantly among her peers, thanks to the unique shape of her funnel. Lexington is known for simply being massive, and Enterprise is easily confused with Essex. Japanese Shokaku does not have many distinctive features, therefore she has a lower detection radius.

https://imgur.com/a/p7g3C

 

Concerning the question about changing the detectability of other ships without their core parameters being changed – it does sometimes happen, but only in fringe cases, when the balance really needs it. In most cases, however, no modifiers are applied to the basic detection radius formula.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×