Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
kid_snotty

stealth in battle

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IFSZF]
Players
1 post
2,010 battles

shot-19_01.25_14_52.56-0067.thumb.jpg.d266dffc75a429831faddcb45b1d5a7a.jpgshot-19_01.25_14_52.56-0067.thumb.jpg.d266dffc75a429831faddcb45b1d5a7a.jpgI appeal to experienced players and game developers  why is my ship in battle have been discovered earlier than the enemy

- shot-19.01.18_00.02.28-0670 - consealment in port

- shot-19.01.25_14.52.56-0067;shot-19.01.25_14.53.03-0926 - consealment before the battle

-  shot-19.01.25_15.02.51-0711  - the time when it is detected my ship ( a vehicle is detected visually, the icons " ship obnarujen radar ", "the ship detected by aircraft" no),the icon "focus on the ship which is closest to" no benefit in the detection

- 20190125_145258_PASD508-Kidd_15_NE_north.wowsreplay- the battle

question :why is the ship having the best stealth was discovered before the enemy(my ship did not shoot and had no fire )

shot-19.01.25_15.02.51-0711.jpg

20190125_145258_PASD508-Kidd_15_NE_north.wowsreplay

shot-19.01.18_00.02.28-0670.jpg

shot-19.01.25_14.52.56-0067.jpg

shot-19.01.25_14.53.03-0926.jpg

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Players
10 posts

Simple answer: your ship didn't have the best concealment in that battle. With full concealment builds, your ship had (tied) worst concealment of all destroyers in that battle.

A hint: dont trust those numbers in loading screen (last screenshot), because those numbers are apparently for stock ships with no upgrades and captain skills.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SNUBS]
Players
1,287 posts
6,828 battles

yes you want to click the concealment part in port and Then look at those vallue's

Same goes for the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CMP]
Weekend Tester
460 posts
3,873 battles

The enemy lightning has a much better concealment range (5,5 km with all bonuses)

 

The Lo-yang will have 5.8 i think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TRAV]
[TRAV]
Players
2,606 posts
26 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

They should either remove those numbers, or make it comparable with other ships.

They are comparable when you compare them to a ship that is fully loaded into the battle (filled bullet at the beginning of the line in the ship listing). That applies for your ship too.

 

The one you are comparing with is not loaded into the battle yet. As the battle arena doesn't know it's stats yet, it informs you about the default stats of the ship instead.

 

Always look for • instead of ○ on both ships or your comparison will be without value.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,484 posts
5,882 battles
13 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

They are comparable when you compare them to a ship that is fully loaded into the battle

 

Correct, but dont try making sense, they will for sure find a way to tell you otherwise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
4,182 posts
5,167 battles
19 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

They are comparable when you compare them to a ship that is fully loaded into the battle (filled bullet at the beginning of the line in the ship listing). That applies for your ship too.

Even then, ratings are often just BS. Concealment is likely the best category to even derrive anything from, but the rest is just pointless.

Spoiler

shot-19_01.26_13_19.09-0324.thumb.jpg.21f712fcdd007a5aea85a44a9e34c362.jpg

shot-19_01.26_13_19.13-0356.thumb.jpg.0e040130db827dc5df175766809337a1.jpg

shot-19_01.26_13_19.20-0290.thumb.jpg.22170ff0a36259172af6ca9d8dca9c1c.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,484 posts
5,882 battles
12 minutes ago, Seiranko said:

Even then, ratings are often just BS. Concealment is likely the best category to even derrive anything from, but the rest is just pointless.

  Hide contents

shot-19_01.26_13_19.09-0324.thumb.jpg.21f712fcdd007a5aea85a44a9e34c362.jpg

shot-19_01.26_13_19.13-0356.thumb.jpg.0e040130db827dc5df175766809337a1.jpg

shot-19_01.26_13_19.20-0290.thumb.jpg.22170ff0a36259172af6ca9d8dca9c1c.jpg

 

 

Erm, as pointed, no its not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,155 posts
10,966 battles
7 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

Erm, as pointed, no its not...

So, you claim that "Kagero hull" Harekaze has better firepower (and by a big margin, value 26 vs 18) than the version with Akizuki guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
4,182 posts
5,167 battles
10 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

Erm, as pointed, no its not...

So, the 3 Midway secondaries with worst dpm at T8 are obviously best option, slightly outperforming Kagero guns and leaving 3/4 Akizuki in the dust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,484 posts
5,882 battles
12 minutes ago, eliastion said:

So, you claim that "Kagero hull" Harekaze has better firepower (and by a big margin, value 26 vs 18) than the version with Akizuki guns?

 

Do those shells deal more dmg? I think you know the answer.

 

You can keep arguing, will not make you right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,839 posts
6,015 battles
4 hours ago, kid_snotty said:

I appeal to experienced players and game developers  why is my ship in battle have been discovered earlier than the enemy 

 

- You dont bring a DD without atleast 10 point captain and CE to the battle. Its an absolute no-go these days.

- Starting a line on T8 is another bad idea. As you should be able to tell from your own performance.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,983 posts
6,038 battles
6 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

Do those shells deal more dmg? I think you know the answer.

 

You can keep arguing, will not make you right...

 

I dont think they will understand, that chaging the numbers to DPM will make Cruisers have 100 on artillery, while BBs would be behind them :cap_fainting:

Lets say Worcester would be 100 (422k average HE/AP DPM), Yamato would be <50 with 199k average HE/AP DPM.

 

Just shows that there is no meaningful way to show the correct numbers - its wrong either way. Question is, what is more wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
4,182 posts
5,167 battles
14 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

Do those shells deal more dmg? I think you know the answer.

 

You can keep arguing, will not make you right...

3x1800=5400

6x1200=7200

 

3x1800x15=81000

6x1200x20=144000

 

Artillery rating of 3x1 127mm/54: 27

Artillery rating of 3x2 100 mm/65: 18 

 

Pen of the 100 mm guns beats the pen on the USN guns, AP difference is even more pronounced than AP difference. Basically the only thing the USN guns are better at than the 10 cm guns is turret traverse, but in all other aspects they are straight up worse, be it damage per salvo or dpm. If turret traverse was the measure, then the Kagero guns would be least, not close second. And if these numbers represented only damage per salvo or even just damage per shot, the Kagero guns would need to be top, not the USN guns.

 

There is basically no meaning behind the number and you can try be snarky about it, but it doesn't change that fact. And it also doesn't mean you can go and tell people that at any time they can take this number as an accurate representation of firepower, because even if the game says B-hull Harekaze has the worst guns at T8 with that rating, anyone with half a brain and who knows Harekaze knows that it has one of the best main armaments vs DDs and second best vs everything else among the T8 DDs.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Beta Tester
369 posts
2,921 battles
1 hour ago, Egoleter said:

They are comparable when you compare them to a ship that is fully loaded into the battle (filled bullet at the beginning of the line in the ship listing). That applies for your ship too.

 

The one you are comparing with is not loaded into the battle yet. As the battle arena doesn't know it's stats yet, it informs you about the default stats of the ship instead.

 

Always look for • instead of ○ on both ships or your comparison will be without value.

In that case it is not comparable and should not be shown. Now it is only confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,155 posts
10,966 battles
45 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

Do those shells deal more dmg? I think you know the answer.

 

You can keep arguing, will not make you right...

This gun configuration deals more damage. Much more, in fact - with both much higher DPM and significantly better penetration. Regardless of what the aggregate value in "artillery" tab is based on, the result is utterly worthless: a ship configuration vastly superior in terms of gun firepower is shown as inferior, completely defeating the purpose of having this value displayed anywhere at all.

 

34 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

I dont think they will understand, that chaging the numbers to DPM will make Cruisers have 100 on artillery, while BBs would be behind them :cap_fainting:

Lets say Worcester would be 100 (422k average HE/AP DPM), Yamato would be <50 with 199k average HE/AP DPM.

 

Just shows that there is no meaningful way to show the correct numbers - its wrong either way. Question is, what is more wrong?

Answer: having this number at all if you can't get it right. THIS is more wrong than lack of accuracy of the algorithm determining the value itself, be it for rapid fire or big guns. The reality is that there are a lot of things to consider when evaluating gun performance. On one hand, this is why it would be nice to have an aggregate "artillery" number giving you some vague understanding of what to expect - but on the other, it only serves its purpose if the values provided reflect, even if only roughly, the actual in-game experience you can expect. If you take a ship that has almost 50% more "artillery" then you expect to be more dangerous with your guns compared to the lesser variant. And yet - you'd be very hard pressed to find any plausible scenario where the kagero's guns on Harekaze would be preferable to the Akizuki configuration, regardless of whether you fight enemy DDs, cruisers or BBs. While there are specific "small stats" that favor Kagero's guns, overall the disparity in favor of Akizuki config is tremendous... and yet the aggregate value shows something opposite: an appropriately big gap, yes, but in the opposite direction. The aggregate value that should be there to help a player make an informed decision without analyzing all the stats and playtesting... just lies to the players, spitting out a number that - regardless of how its derived - has nothing to do with the actual relative firepower granted by both configurations. It's  not even that the algorithm failed to account for something and didn't properly show the gap: it showed the gap in the wrong direction.

If WG can't make these aggregate numbers work, they should just remove them. Lack of information is better than misinformation - and that's what anybody naive enough to trust these numbers gets.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,983 posts
6,038 battles
4 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Answer: having this number at all if you can't get it right. The reality is that there are a lot of things to consider when evaluating gun performance. On one hand, this is why it would be nice to have an aggregate "artillery" number giving you some vague understanding of what to expect - but on the other, it only serves its purpose if the values provided reflect, even if only roughly, the actual in-game experience you can expect. If you take a ship that has almost 50% more "artillery" then you expect to be more dangerous with your guns compared to the lesser variant. And yet - you'd be very hard pressed to find any plausible scenario where the kagero's guns on Harekaze would be preferable to the Akizuki configuration, regardless of whether you fight enemy DDs, cruisers or BBs. While there are specific "small stats" that favor Kagero's guns, overall the disparity in favor of Akizuki config is tremendous... and yet the aggregate value shows something opposite: an appropriately big gap, yes, but in the opposite direction. The aggregate value that should be there to help a player make an informed decision without analyzing all the stats and playtesting... just lies to the players, spitting out a number that - regardless of how its derived - has nothing to do with the actual relative firepower granted by both configurations. It's  not even that the algorithm failed to account for something and didn't properly show the gap: it showed the gap in the wrong direction. 

If WG can't make these aggregate numbers work, they should just remove them. Lack of information is better than misinformation - and that's what anybody naive enough to trust these numbers gets.

 

Yes i agree with that (removing the whole thing), but if you would let the numbers show DPM, we are faced with the problems that BBs have rather low-ish DPM. That doesnt mean that their guns are worse than Cruiser or even DD guns.

Also what about IFHE? Should a Shchors without it have like a really bad value, while one with IFHE would have like who knows how much more? The difference is basicly 0 damage vs normal damage... Basicly the same is true for Akizuki, without IFHE the HE is crap, unless he faces T6 cruisers/DDs ofc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
4,182 posts
5,167 battles
21 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Basicly the same is true for Akizuki, without IFHE the HE is crap, unless he faces T6 cruisers/DDs ofc.

Without IFHE, the Akizuki HE still pens up to 24 mm, which means all DDs (except Khaba belt), most cruisers till T7 and RN cruisers till T10. Without IFHE, Akizuki guns still are better than other DD guns without IFHE.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,155 posts
10,966 battles
37 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Yes i agree with that (removing the whole thing), but if you would let the numbers show DPM, we are faced with the problems that BBs have rather low-ish DPM. That doesnt mean that their guns are worse than Cruiser or even DD guns.

Also what about IFHE? Should a Shchors without it have like a really bad value, while one with IFHE would have like who knows how much more? The difference is basicly 0 damage vs normal damage... Basicly the same is true for Akizuki, without IFHE the HE is crap, unless he faces T6 cruisers/DDs ofc.

I'm not saying what these numbers should show. It's (obviously) not an easy task to design an automatically-determined aggregate number that would take in all the relevant factors and end up making any sort of sense - and I don't really feel like trying to do WG's job at this point.

 

What I'm saying is much simpler: these values are worthless or, worse than that: misleading, giving players who try to consult them false information. I remember when I was a relatively new player and found myself almost picking an AA hull for Farragut because, hey, a nice AA improvement at the cost -1 in Artillery value... and yes, there was one turret less but so was the case on Nicholas that ended up shooting quicker and was overall more dangerous and fun to play after the upgrade (and was basically a straight-up upgrade even if there was one turret less)! "Must be USN thing, the DDs lose a turret but are somewhere compensated so that they guns either get better (hence the upgrade on Nicholas) or end up only marginally worse (hence sidegrade on Farragut)."

 

It's nice that I figured out my mistake right away (and stopped taking these numbers seriously ever since) - but I'm a bit of a special case, with more affinity for numbers than the average person. But I'm pretty sure that most WoWs players aren't holders of technical degrees nor even interested in math. And it's precisely these less mathematically inclined (perhaps outright intimidate by lots and lots of numbers) that reach to their "friends" - the aggregate, easy to digest values for torpedo power, artillery and the rest... and then these people get mercilessly stabbed in the back by said "friends" that seemingly make things easier but in reality just provide potentially misleading information that you might or might not quickly uncover as utter bull. And that's before you encounter the problem of "ship comparison on loading doesn't necessarily show you the actual values" that means that the values aren't only misleading - the game can provide you with false ones in the first place! Funfunfun.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TRAV]
[TRAV]
Players
2,606 posts
4 hours ago, Seiranko said:

Even then, ratings are often just BS. Concealment is likely the best category to even derrive anything from, but the rest is just pointless.

As the thread is about the concealment value, as the opening post and title imply, my answer of course only applies to that one.

All other values are rather abstract and often not comparable at all.

 

Sorry, I failed to communicate this properly.

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.

×