mtm78

You want historically accurate... which means every taskforce consists mainly off destroyers and cruisers all there to prove AAA for the capital ships, to defend against aircraft launched from carriers which would not even be on the same map? If not, accept this is a game with balancing elements which do not follow history to the letter in order to create varied and enjoyable gameplay. If you two do not agree, fine. Lets just agree to disagreeing then

In a 1v1 you would be right. This is a 12v12 game, where traits of ships do not have to follow the same principles. Having mechanics ENFORCE teamwork is sadly needed for WoWs playerbase since CBT, remove the incentive and teamwork would go down the drain even more. You know how many complaints there were about invisi fire in CBT? That is correct, none.

The Akizuki is not faster then your CAs, it does not turn faster either. And what good is cammo if its totally gone when you fire your guns? This is not Unreal Tournament this is a tactical game. Stealth firing is a tactical element. Replacing it with speed, mhm yeah VMF destroyers actually can do this with Leningrad 48.3kts and Khabarovsk 48.7kts with speed boost and flag, makes them quite hard to hit. But you cant make all ships go that fast as even there speed is a balancing factor. Again, stealth fire is not a broken concept in a team based game.

But that wouldn't work when there are many ships around, it would basically make ships which are now balanced around their invisifire capabilities unable to do anything influential while there are still many ships in game. Anything which makes Akizuki visible the whole time while shooting will reduce her effectiveness. There are to many ships in game with fast enough turret rotation, the moment an Akizuki would pop up on the minimap everyone would shoot at it because it's paper and people like easy kills ( Atlanta syndrome ). And if you would counter that by increasing her durability, you run into a massive balance issue as it would require everything else to be changed to. Removing invisi fire from the game would break more then it would fix, and I'd rather see the developers put their effort into things which are actually worth while ( or actually an issue ). ps we're not taling about one ship here, there are a few others which also excel at it. Even Yamato can stealth fire And yes, I do mean stealth fire from distance not using smoke or islands to hide behind.

I guess you misunderstood, in a training room I can duplicate his results consistently. I always get two puffs when doing it as in his video. In game I sometimes don't but when I look that back I always am just below or above the 'desired' speed, or I wasn't already decelerating. If you look at my posting history you will see I did classify it as a bug myself, but objectively speaking I can't if the behavior is consistent. Then it's not a bug, but a 'bugged feature', which again also doesn't mean I don't think it should be changed. If only for the amount of people who complain about it, the game is supposed to be fun, if something in the game causes so many people to feel something is broken it should force the developers to look at the mechanic again. That being said, people can complain about HE and invisi fire all they want, don't you dare WG to actually go back and change that

The mechanic is slightly different but so are the sizes of the smoke puffs and thus the speed thresholds. Again, if anyone can make a video in a training room showing inconsistent behavior then it would be really easy: it's a friggin bug Consider this an invitation, also extended from strangers I guess, to put up a video where under identical situations ( which are easier to duplicate in a training room ) the smoke behaves inconsistent, the mechanic itself would immediately be classified as buggy. That would be the quickest way to ensure it is changed. Especially if you have people like strangers which tell me his experience coincides with 'consistent behavior'. If no one can do that, people should continue to point out the mechanic off RN smoke is just broken in concept.

Because it wouldn't work. Akizuki is the 'new' tier 8 IJN gunboat, with 4x2 100mm gun's. Fully specced it has amazing stealth fire capability ( without CE it's 9km concealment when shooting the main guns.. with CE 8km or so.. and you have 12km gun range ). But, those 100mm shells when firing HE have very low dmg ( can't even pen same or higher tier DD's with it ;) ). The fire chance is low as well. The AP on the other hand, against anything which shows a broadside is amazing. But the ship is slow, turns like a cruisers and has no armor. If you would make this ship ( as it's a nice example ) always visible when firing ( it has ~3s reload... no concealment debuff would last shorter then 3 seconds right ) it would be extremely easy to kill it. DD's have to high ROF to benefit from a 'shorter duration' visibility debuf. Admiral_Noodle suggested, after acknowledging the mechanic isn't actually broken and that it's important for class balance, that he wants the mechanic removed because it breaks immersion. And to that I can't disagree, it's his opinion after all. For me, personally, I been shot while being invisible spamming with Akizuki, by players who were tracking my shells. Sure it requires a lot of skill and luck to boot. More skill probably than most of the playerbase would posses. The suggestion was made to make DD's currently invisible while firing ( and I would guess it should apply to any ship but DD's are the main 'blame' for this so called broken mechanic ) visible but without target lock. The ingame target lock has a huge impact on the dispersion while shooting. But, I also don't like this because it replaces skill ( in shooting from concealment, which let's be honest isn't as easy nor game breaking since it relies on being in the right position in regard to your team and the game objectives to have any real effect, and actually doing loads of damage while not getting spotted is also almost impossible ( unless your team has potato's all around, which don't screen or refuse to relocate to help out their allies ) ). Also, the lack of CV's in game makes invisi fire easier, with more CV's and especially those who actually know how to play the game and don't just dmg whore but also provide vision for their team when needed, there would be almost no situation where invisi fire would actually be a real influence on game outcome. So what I was left with was for invisible DD's or CA's to stay invisible, with one change. Instead of just being able to track a ship through the shells, actually render muzzle flashes. These muzzle flashes should enable better 'blind fire'. That's about as far as I am willing to go to 'fix' something which imo isn't broken to start with.

I know, I am not defending the mechanic, I am just trying to point out that afaik this isn't actually a bug. Not until someone can duplicate the above video showing other results ( which is a clear indication off erratic behavior which immediately classifies it as a bug ). Until then, people should complain about a 'broken mechanic' The reliance on smoke puffs not rendering depending on the location of the ship in relation to an existing smoke puff is to lower gpu usage and probably server cpu usage. This works pretty well with DD's but they have more smoke puffs which makes this mechanic not be an issue for them. With the RN you really need to be in the correct speed range ( including already decelerating ) or the mechanic will cause problematic situations in gameplay. Which is what people should use as argument ( again, as until someone shows the behavior is actually inconsistent, there is no 'bug' ).

And the actual effectiveness of this invisi fire capability depends on the stupidity of the one you're shooting, or in some extremely rare cases, on them being the last one alive versus an invisi firing capable ship. And even then. taking Akizuki as example, the actual damage output of this 'broken mechanic' is so low it's very strange to see people actually arguing it's a broken mechanic. Normally these people have few battles in and don't own many or any higher tier ships. Which makes it even harder to see where this complaint comes from as invisi fire becomes only a real possibility around tier 7 ( Blys... ).

edit: darnit it was posted in a spoiler before.. Anyway I asked him to make a video since according to the developers afaik this is working as intended edit2: btw he kinda forgot but it did come up during the conversation that the speed threshold is different for Fiji and other RN CL's compared with Belfast, since Belfast is slower in bleeding speeds.

Shallows would be 'fun' but we don't need more corridor gameplay. If I wanted that I would still be playing tanks.

I still didn't see actual inconsistent behavior, might pointing out the time code's?

Yeah, I want DD master race ... ow wait, I actually play ALL classes except carriers, and I do well in all of them to boot. Maybe stop making accusations off bias before actually checking if you're spouting nonsense. To me it's pretty clear, you think Akizuki should not be able to invisi fire based on range. Which I think is rather daft as Akizuki has enough downsides to compensate for this 'broken mechanic' and if you would remove this mechanic the ship would need a lot of buffs in other departments. Adding to that, it's not even needed as the mechanic as explained before isn't broken to start with.

WG employee / developer.

Yes you can, and it's been explained in the thread already. This isn't a 1v1 game.

Yeah let's run towards BB's and let them shoot the no armor no hp no heal ships all day long, that's FUN right Or wait, no it's balance right... How about nope.gif

That was already know days ago Sub_Octavian said this prior to New Year ( on RU forum ofc.. where else would WG give news or information ).

They need something to cry about now Fire Prevention is buffed so much, and DE nerved to being almost useless?

Did not know about the dns, very nice to know makes it a lot easier to guide people to come on the server

You can call it anything you want, but WG will not jump into action and change something which is 'working as intended' if everyone is calling it a bug. If you simply accept that it might be 'working as intended', and then immediately add the statement that the intended method is bullpoop, you would have a far better chance of getting any meaningful reply and/or response.

Why did you skip the second and third Anglo-Dutch wars Also, how nice if you have to gloat about beating a country which had what.. 1/10th the amount of inhabitants

Naming and shaming is not allowed. Secondly... ^^ if you hold fire to secure a kill I would be pissed as well. Just as I am pissed when some 45% bot kills of the last enemy which I took down to 200hp while being on 4 kills already, especially when looking at the scoreboard seeing I had 2xxx base xp and the bot couldn't even break 1k. Doesn't happen often though, most bots just can't aim even if the enemy only has 200hp left

A Smith? You mean the suicide destroyer which can't torp unless it's spotted and which has guns with about the same range? No thank you. And I already have Kamikaze R from the event

Would you be surprised my bank note comes in RED instead of BLACK But touché

For proper coaching being on voice coms is a must, typing in the middle of a battle is something which severely limits communication And it is this immediate feedback which should be the most valuable, since if people are shown in game ( by their own results ) how small changes in decision making can have large impacts on their performance, it becomes easier for them to look at their own decision making tree.