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

Concealment nerf - 0.8.0

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[POMF]
Players
137 posts
9,327 battles

Short and sweet and the carrier rework disaster aside.

 

The nerf to concealment expert, directly affecting Cruisers and Battleships is not being talked about enough.

 

I knew this change was coming, however I assumed base concealment would be changed for most or at the very least SOME cruisers. This change does not make sense and really really hurts ships specifically designed around concealment.

 

How can a straight -10% work across the board within a carefully set eco system of concealment, worked on for over 3 years without adjusting base concealment for certain ships?

 

Ships which I feel are especially hurt are:

  • Des Moines
  • Minotaur
  • Zao
  • Worcester
  • Atago
  • Pretty much all tier 8 cruisers...

 

And dare I say it...:

  • Conqueror (A ship based around concealment, I know this ship has been waiting for a balance, but I don't think this is the right way to do it). The ship has gained 1km in concealment since release.
  • Stalingrad (okay maybe not the best thing to bring up, but like above, concealment is not the best way to balance this ship either).

 

To sum up, I assumed this changed was intended only to simplify and make concealment expert uniform where base XP would be adjusted for pretty much all ships.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SINT]
Players
937 posts
21,204 battles

British BB Monarch.... The only things she has was concealment.. While she is still the best among her peers her only redeeming stat just got dimished...

 

So now WG finaly repaired Izumo in a way that she is now longer the ugly duck tier IX BB they might make the Monarch their next buff project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Players
137 posts
9,327 battles
1 minute ago, Sir_Grzegorz said:

I am playing Minotaur and Zao and I do not really see any reason why they need buff?

Could you elaborate?

They don't need a buff. But reasoning is they did not need a nerf.

 

It has thrown things way off balance.

 

There is no way one fixed adjustment can work for all ships.

 

This is affecting me far more than the carrier rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ICG]
Players
529 posts
4,339 battles

I remember a time when people got the message that they wouldn't get manual controle fighter squadrons/ less squadrons in total and cried that nobody would spot anymore for the team.

 

And now there seems to be a problem with TO MUCH SPOTTING!!! :Smile_facepalm: People should make their minds up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTTX]
[TTTX]
Players
4,608 posts
8,081 battles
8 minutes ago, valoaa said:

It has thrown things way off balance.

any evidence for that? because right now it's pretty much just you claiming that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SINT]
Players
937 posts
21,204 battles
25 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Atago, Zao, maybe.

Rest, not.

They are fine.

How much do they lose? 300-400M concealment? Consequences depend on the role you are fulfilling.

So as a support CA firespammer this means fight the same distance further away so you can still slip into concealmode if needed. With the recent acuracy buff this should not really matter to your dpm. As DD hunter you indeed lose some distance to “ get the jump” on them but Imo these ships are not the best suited for that role in the first place. The stealth torp capability of the Atago is now limited. The ZAO still has some safe distance.

 

So i think consequneces are indeed not that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Players
137 posts
9,327 battles
9 minutes ago, Jvd2000 said:

British BB Monarch.... The only things she has was concealment.. While she is still the best among her peers her only redeeming stat just got dimished...

 

So now WG finaly repaired Izumo in a way that she is now longer the ugly duck tier IX BB they might make the Monarch their next buff project?

Agreed, Monarch And Roma, both awfully underwhelming in terms on firepower.

 

Only saving grace is concealment. Which has now ben nerfed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Players
137 posts
9,327 battles
17 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

any evidence for that? because right now it's pretty much just you claiming that...

If you're unable to notice that the concealment eco system is now wrong with your circa 8,000 battles and that purple clan tag, then something wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Players
137 posts
9,327 battles
6 minutes ago, belalugosisdead said:

Hm. My first thought was Neptune. This ship maybe can need some reduced CE and smoke firing Penalty.  

Agreed, Neptune has it similar to Minotaur, maybe worse.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OGHF]
Players
1,161 posts
20,888 battles
5 minutes ago, belalugosisdead said:

Hm. My first thought was Neptune. This ship maybe can need some reduced CE and smoke firing Penalty.  

 

Really??, it has just had a massive nerf from the screw up in the smoke /  20 second detection [edited] up, it is possibly the weakest T9 cruiser as it is, it struggles in the current Ranked season along with the DD’s because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Players
137 posts
9,327 battles
14 minutes ago, Jvd2000 said:

How much do they lose? 300-400M concealment? Consequences depend on the role you are fulfilling.

So as a support CA firespammer this means fight the same distance further away so you can still slip into concealmode if needed. With the recent acuracy buff this should not really matter to your dpm. As DD hunter you indeed lose some distance to “ get the jump” on them but Imo these ships are not the best suited for that role in the first place. The stealth torp capability of the Atago is now limited. The ZAO still has some safe distance.

 

So i think consequneces are indeed not that much.

Agreed, fair points.

 

However 300-400 is all the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,753 posts
12,048 battles
44 minutes ago, valoaa said:

Short and sweet and the carrier rework disaster aside.

 

The nerf to concealment expert, directly affecting Cruisers and Battleships is not being talked about enough.

 

I knew this change was coming, however I assumed base concealment would be changed for most or at the very least SOME cruisers. This change does not make sense and really really hurts ships specifically designed around concealment.

 

How can a straight -10% work across the board within a carefully set eco system of concealment, worked on for over 3 years without adjusting base concealment for certain ships?

 

Ships which I feel are especially hurt are:

  • Des Moines
  • Minotaur
  • Zao
  • Worcester
  • Atago
  • Pretty much all tier 8 cruisers...

 

And dare I say it...:

  • Conqueror (A ship based around concealment, I know this ship has been waiting for a balance, but I don't think this is the right way to do it). The ship has gained 1km in concealment since release.
  • Stalingrad (okay maybe not the best thing to bring up, but like above, concealment is not the best way to balance this ship either).

 

To sum up, I assumed this changed was intended only to simplify and make concealment expert uniform where base XP would be adjusted for pretty much all ships.

This is, actually, a good change.

DDs were hurt by certain cruisers being too stealthy (especially certain Radar cruisers).

Cruisers had little concealment advantage over certain stealthy BBs.

 

These changes give the stealthier classes a bit more concealment advantage over the classes that are supposed to be less stealthy. Obviously it's a bit irrelevant with 2 CVs per team right now but once we get to more reasonable levels of aerial presence and concealment matters again, it should be better than pre-patch in this regard. That is, unless you include the planned "standardization" (read: buffs across the board but hardly noticeable at t10 and huge at t8) to Radar ranges.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BANCV]
Players
887 posts
12,777 battles

The CE change was a totally not needed indirect buff to DDs vs CAs. I play a lot of high tier DD games and they are fine the balance with spotting and radar (specially after Wooster nerf) is fine. Mino is no real threat on it's own and also risks quite a bit when using radar so it's a good trade-off.

 

It's also a nerf to CAs vs BBs. CA vs BB concealment means very little because it only matters when there is just the CA and the BB in the equation which is very rarely the case. People just think "wait you spot the BB further away now so why is it a nerf?" the issue isn't at what ranges the CA spots the BB because the CA will be spotted by other CAs or DDs.

Values might seem small to most people as well but the maps aren't exactly big in this game. And the tactical areas of importance are even smaller. 200-300m can be quite a difference when it comes to approaching certain areas where someone can position close to an island and basically cut you off from coming closer because he spots you sooner now.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,036 posts
11,131 battles

The maps are too small in my opinion, and as a result scouting is pathetic/unnecessary. Enemy will be here and here (Think New Dawn). Now add poor concealment and the game becomes just another point and click/shoot game. You can see nearly all ships within a minute or two of the game starting. In fact some BBs you can be almost spotted from spawn to spawn, if not for an island or two. Want to disengage to heal? Forget it, and the cherry on this turd? Warp speed plane spam, spotting everything. So why did they nerf concealment? I think to make game action, faster and more furious. Games don't last that long. I'm seeing a lot more cruisers getting sunk very quickly. If they get spotted by plane or by DD, all hell lets loose on them, trying to get into concealment again is not easy.

 

A bit part of naval warfare was finding the enemy fleet and keeping them spotted, so that bigger or more numerous ships could be brought into action against them. This is not part of this game anymore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,238 posts
9,063 battles
26 minutes ago, Spithas said:

The CE change was a totally not needed indirect buff to DDs vs CAs. I play a lot of high tier DD games and they are fine the balance with spotting and radar (specially after Wooster nerf) is fine. Mino is no real threat on it's own and also risks quite a bit when using radar so it's a good trade-off.

 

It's also a nerf to CAs vs BBs. CA vs BB concealment means very little because it only matters when there is just the CA and the BB in the equation which is very rarely the case. People just think "wait you spot the BB further away now so why is it a nerf?" the issue isn't at what ranges the CA spots the BB because the CA will be spotted by other CAs or DDs.

Values might seem small to most people as well but the maps aren't exactly big in this game. And the tactical areas of importance are even smaller. 200-300m can be quite a difference when it comes to approaching certain areas where someone can position close to an island and basically cut you off from coming closer because he spots you sooner now.

giphy.gif

 

Feels like there is only a handful of reasonable people left in the forums...

 

29 minutes ago, eliastion said:

This is, actually, a good change.

DDs were hurt by certain cruisers being too stealthy (especially certain Radar cruisers).

Cruisers had little concealment advantage over certain stealthy BBs. 

 

:cap_fainting:Certainly, when some ships are too strong, nerf whole class because reason. And Worcester got nerfed anyway, which it needed.

How about Cruisers are hurt by certain BBs being too accurate and punishing?

So we might give Cruisers 50km concealment, as long as BBs have, lets say, 70km, everything is fine :cap_tea: What an enormous buff to Cruisers: 20km concealment advantage over BBs, yaay.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,602 posts
10,790 battles
28 minutes ago, Spithas said:

Values might seem small to most people as well but the maps aren't exactly big in this game. And the tactical areas of importance are even smaller. 200-300m can be quite a difference when it comes to approaching certain areas where someone can position close to an island and basically cut you off from coming closer because he spots you sooner now.

 

Exactly. But it seems like, many people cant comprehend this and focus only on the raw numbers and/or the scale between the classes. Concealment however has a direct correlation with the maps.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,753 posts
12,048 battles
2 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

:cap_fainting:Certainly, when some ships are too strong, nerf whole class because reason. And Worcester got nerfed anyway, which it needed.

How about Cruisers are hurt by certain BBs being too accurate and punishing?

So we might give Cruisers 50km concealment, as long as BBs have, lets say, 70km, everything is fine :cap_tea: What an enormous buff to Cruisers: 20km concealment advantage over BBs, yaay. 

I take it you'll prefer if all cruisers and battleships at t10 had the same 11km stock concealment - I mean, it's a buff to cruiser concealment, yaay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
985 posts
21,161 battles
1 hour ago, Cyclops_ said:

 

Really??, it has just had a massive nerf from the screw up in the smoke /  20 second detection [edited] up, it is possibly the weakest T9 cruiser as it is, it struggles in the current Ranked season along with the DD’s because of it.

 

And because of this a buff in CE would be good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHEN]
Moderator, WoWs Wiki Team
2,434 posts
14,049 battles
Il y a 14 minutes, eliastion a dit :

I take it you'll prefer if all cruisers and battleships at t10 had the same 11km stock concealment - I mean, it's a buff to cruiser concealment, yaay!

With the same bonus on CE talent, It's a big nerf on Cruisers.

 

BB have guns size for punish a Cruiser, so If a Cruiser can been spot on same time than a BB it's a unbalance match. Cruiser need to avoid close range on BB, so the concelement is not the same.

 

From now Zao and Atago don't be on trouble. Can torp unspoted.

But the major problem is the Moskva/Stalin/Henri/Hinden => Basic spot is not very good, so the 2% less is a major nerf against DDs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,238 posts
9,063 battles
15 minutes ago, eliastion said:

I take it you'll prefer if all cruisers and battleships at t10 had the same 11km stock concealment - I mean, it's a buff to cruiser concealment, yaay!

 

That is not the only option, is it?

For me, Concealment should be DD > Cruiser > BB. Just for balancing reasons, and not forced because "that ship is higher than the other, so it must have worse concealment" which WG is using to balance concealment.

You said yourself, you like DDs the most. Do you spot Cruisers or the BBs somewhere sitting behind you? I think its you who is spotting the Cruisers in his DD. So tell me again, Cruisers need worse concealment in general, and it is balanced because BBs have slightly worse.

 

Also id like you to consider, here are Unicum clans (OMNI/SHEN) saying that its wrong. Maybe they are right on this one, and there is a reason they are so good, so they know what those changes mean for (Cruiser)-gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,690 posts
13,854 battles

I think server statistics disagreed with OP's opinion. Too powerfull ships receive nerfs, too weak ships buffs. If a class is not used as it should be - support role for cruisers - they are probably all nerfed untill they do what they should be doing. Reduced stealth looks like that.

 

Lobbing HE from stealth at BB is probably not what cruisers are supposed to do. The need to support DD capping by helping kill other DD and cruisers, and/or escort BB against DD and aircraft.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,753 posts
12,048 battles
17 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

Lobbing HE from stealth at BB is probably not what cruisers are supposed to do. The need to support DD capping by helping kill other DD and cruisers, and/or escort BB against DD and aircraft.

Actually, while I'm in favor of this change, this is a terrible argument for it. Nerfing cruiser stealth (compared to DDs) has many effects but making them more likely to push close to caps to support their DDs in the opening phase of the match will most definitely NOT be one of them.

 

26 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

You said yourself, you like DDs the most. Do you spot Cruisers or the BBs somewhere sitting behind you? I think its you who is spotting the Cruisers in his DD. So tell me again, Cruisers need worse concealment in general, and it is balanced because BBs have slightly worse.

Sure, when I play a DD, I tend to be a bit closer to the front.

But when I occasionally play cruisers - my only t10 is Zao but that's supposedly one that (according to OP) is going to suffer - I find out that being spotted by DDs is actually not quite as common as I'd expect. Especially in the latter part of the game - I'm usually spotted when I fire my guns, in fact. And it's far from rare for me to be the - or one of the stealthiest ships on the map because DDs often die quite fast and the late game often sees 0-1 of them per side, making most of the map devoid of DD spotting.

Share this post


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

×