Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
DuckyShot

Why were OWSF and 2km smoke firing removed from the game??

151 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7,502
[GGWP]
Members
7,085 posts
16,345 battles

I did a little bit of digging and didn't find anything, but thought someone here might remember something better. 

Basically just looking for WG comments and discussion about why open water stealth firing and 2km concealment in smoke when smoke firing was bad for the game. 

I'm just curious how they worded it. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,502
[GGWP]
Members
7,085 posts
16,345 battles
Just now, thegamefilmguruman said:

2km smoke firing has never been a thing because assured detection range is 2km. If you're under 2km, you see the ship regardless.

True that... Bad wording on my part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
241
[_AFW_]
[_AFW_]
Members
320 posts
6,229 battles

Because it was not healthy for the game to have battleships sitting in smoke firing. AS far as OWSF I've never played with it but i can say it's horrible to play against in WOT. It leads to sniping and camping.

Edited by EasternSun
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
671 posts
2,548 battles
10 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

open water stealth firing

Because some ships could upgrade their firing range by 25~30% and have a hell of a big are where he can safely fire without suffering.

I don't know DDs firing range, but my Yõgumo without firing range upgrades fire at 12km, and that's a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,323
[KWF]
Members
4,888 posts
6,590 battles

From the update notes themselves https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/patch-notes-063/

Quote

In Update 0.6.3, we upgraded the concealment feature. Update 0.6.3 will make the detectability range of a ship after firing its main guns equal to the ship's maximum firing range. This change will eliminate situations where ships with a low detectability range could fire at enemy ships in sight while remaining invisible to them. The use of obstacles like terrain and smokescreens will not be affected, and they may still be used to gain an advantage over the enemy.

This decision is based on a thorough review of the feedback from our players and the combat tactics used in the game. From careful study of your feedback, we have come to the conclusion that stealth firing—i.e. shooting from invisibility while in open water—causes more pain than profit and makes the gameplay dull. Its exclusion will make the game more enjoyable to play and fairer for all.

Concealment will still provide advantages for low-observability ships, but in order to inflict damage with impunity you will need to use smokescreens, the terrain, and your ability to manoeuvre like a pro. We will closely monitor the situation after the update is released, and if the combat effectiveness of individual ships becomes insufficient, we will make the necessary changes to their combat characteristics.

Apart from that, there will be no increase in detectability for ships after firing secondary battery or AA guns.

Some ships could just dominate with this. If memory serves Blyskawica could stealthfire without even CE at around 9km, making her unbelievably strong. Gremyaschy could do similar things. I also remember Atago, Zao, Ibuki and Mogami being able to stealthfire comfortably. 

I think the biggest culprits were Blyska, Gremy and especially Zao however.

 

As for smoke, I think it had to do with how simple it was to be able to permahide BBs and Cruisers without any repercussions.

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
29 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

I did a little bit of digging and didn't find anything, but thought someone here might remember something better. 

The RU Server hated them. OWSF made kiting a real pain (which is more of a thing on the RU) and smoke being less useful against advancing units was important to the RU's hyper aggressive playstyle. There were a few RU Q/A's that discussed the issue. You can go back and read them on the RU Forums if you're curious (and take the time to dig them up).

The NA server rarely is the cause/source of a change to be made that is as sweeping as that.

18 minutes ago, ALROCHA said:

Because some ships could upgrade their firing range by 25~30% and have a hell of a big are where he can safely fire without suffering.

I don't know DDs firing range, but my Yõgumo without firing range upgrades fire at 12km, and that's a lot.


Fletcher can be upgraded (GFCSM2 + AFT) to hit her hard range cap of ~16.6 km. She had, iirc, about an 8 km stealth fire window when spec'd right. Hipper could have about 1.5 km, I remember abusing that. Balt had a 2.7 km stealth firing window too.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,615
[PVE]
Members
19,974 posts
12,663 battles
11 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

Image result for I smell something

I suspect a future post to equate OWSF and CVs would be my guess.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,578 posts
22,927 battles

    They removed it so that later down the road people could attempt to bring up the reasoning and apply it to different situations in a game that has changed over the years to try and convolutedly push an agenda. I VIVIDLY recall that being their reasoning but their CENSORSHIP has clearly blocked it from the search function. I personally am OUTRAGED because of it as well!!!!111!!1!

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[WOLFG]
Members
10,477 posts
9,789 battles
Just now, Kizarvexis said:

I suspect a future post to equate OWSF and CVs would be my guess.

I was going to let the punchline hang.

And the trap has already been sprung.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,615
[PVE]
Members
19,974 posts
12,663 battles
Just now, DrHolmes52 said:

I was going to let the punchline hang.

And the trap has already been sprung.

:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,660 posts
3 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

I suspect a future post to equate OWSF and CVs would be my guess.

 

2 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

I was going to let the punchline hang.

And the trap has already been sprung.

All this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,596
[KRAK]
Members
3,718 posts
21,738 battles
18 minutes ago, EasternSun said:

Because it was not healthy for the game to have battleships sitting in smoke firing. AS far as OWSF I've never played with it but i can say it's horrible to play against in WOT. It leads to sniping and camping.

Very few ships were able to OWSF mostly DDs and a very few cruisers. It really was never that big of a problem but the BB crowd whined incessantly about it.

  • Cool 3
  • Meh 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,502
[GGWP]
Members
7,085 posts
16,345 battles

Yeah, the updates weren't hard to find, was hoping to see a bit more in depth detailing on why it was bad for the game. 

I prefer not using my thoughts on why cvs are bad, because WG doesn't care about what I think. But using things like their goals and objectives for the cv rework and pointing out they haven't achieved them work better for pointing out to WG. With the cc summit coming up, I figured it would be nice to arm our ccs with more data and such that WG will respect (themselves and their comments they have made in the past) 

  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,660 posts

@Kizarvexis

@DrHolmes52

The comparison I've not seen yet is equating the use of fighters to spot for the rocket/torpedo/bomb squadron to attack low detection ships to what the Belfast does.  Namely squadrons spoting for themselves essentially from concealment/covet since the attack squadrons are out of AA range.

Edited by Gunga_Dinner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[WOLFG]
Members
10,477 posts
9,789 battles
1 minute ago, Ducky_shot said:

Yeah, the updates weren't hard to find, was hoping to see a bit more in depth detailing on why it was bad for the game. 

I prefer not using my thoughts on why cvs are bad, because WG doesn't care about what I think. But using things like their goals and objectives for the cv rework and pointing out they haven't achieved them work better for pointing out to WG. With the cc summit coming up, I figured it would be nice to arm our ccs with more data and such that WG will respect (themselves and their comments they have made in the past) 

Do you really think that WG is going to change things because the CCs say so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,502
[GGWP]
Members
7,085 posts
16,345 battles
2 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

Do you really think that WG is going to change things because the CCs say so?

If the ccs have good feedback to give, yes. How many things were announced to be changed shortly after flamu or jingles or someone posts about a problem with the game. It's happened a couple times more than for it to be a total coincidence every time. 

Edited by Ducky_shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[WOLFG]
Members
10,477 posts
9,789 battles
Just now, Ducky_shot said:

If the ccs have good feedback to give, yes. How many things were announced to be changed shortly after flamu or jingles or someone posts about a problem with the game. It's happening d a couple times more than for it to be a total coincidence every time. 

Yes, but the CCs have been talking about CVs for 5+ months.

And I picked up the point of your OP immediately.  If I can pick up the, well lets go with "inconsistency", then I'm certain WG is aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
7 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

Do you really think that WG is going to change things because the CCs say so?

NA CC's? Not as much. EU and RU CC's? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,502
[GGWP]
Members
7,085 posts
16,345 battles
2 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

Yes, but the CCs have been talking about CVs for 5+ months.

And I picked up the point of your OP immediately.  If I can pick up the, well lets go with "inconsistency", then I'm certain WG is aware of it.

They aren't going to remove them, but reworking aa might do wonders. 

I find it interesting how many people picked up the point of the post. It's almost like it's easy to equate those 2 with CV's currently.... 

Edited by Ducky_shot
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,578 posts
22,927 battles

    From watching the Q&A Fem and Sub did I was under the impression they are hearing what people are saying and they are trying to change/fix things one at a time until they find something that can be considered a balance. I think anyone looking for another rework to get it changed a certain way may be expecting a bit much. I think anyone looking for them to be removed or reverted again are probably expecting a bit much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[WOLFG]
Members
10,477 posts
9,789 battles
Just now, Ducky_shot said:

They aren't going to remove them, but reworking aa might do wonders. 

Ahhh.

I would agree.  Even playing coop, the AA mechanic is not very rewarding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,536
[NG-NL]
Members
6,249 posts
10,088 battles

OWSF had to go because 1) not much counterplay available and 2) encouraged selfish play too much. It was easy for the OWSF cruisers and DDs to just fire w/ impunity without being spotted. Very frustrating to have no way to fight back.

Smoke detection had to be adjusted after--if memory serves--players demonstrated they could lock down part of the map in Belfast/Fiji/Sims/Mahan divs. When even BBs used smoke to get off volleys without being detected, yeah, that was a real issue.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×