Stealth firing nerf

[Solo_Wing_Potato]

 

For those that are unaware Concealment Expert no longer affects the detection penalty when firing your guns.

 

Officially stated here:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/4l0qag/another_quena_starting_today_2pm_pst5pm_est_about/d3jndgx

 

 

While not being overly bothered by the nerf I am annoyed that once again WG have kept a fairly considerable change from the patch notes and only 'admitted' to it when challenged.

 

Seriously WG why is it so hard to document all the changes you make?

 

[Xevious_Red]

Agreed. Even if it was announced as "fixed a bug that caused CE to affect firing detection. Now working as intended"

[BadGene616]

I'm very very bothered by the nerf. Cruiser survivability at high tier is an issue and concealment is a major counter to this.

 

This is going to hammer cruisers.

 

Not to mention making the 5 point me skill less useful. 

[DeckardBR]

While it is poor form not to document it (I read the patch notes and do not recall mention of stealth fire changes, correct me if wrong!), I do support the changes made. Stealth fire was as bad as torp spam and needed to be drastically toned down.

 

NO ship class should get a no risk option when it comes to dealing damage, balancing the risk/reward for the classes, is in my opinion one of the most important aspects of the game.

 

Frankly the same applies to the AA changes, all these carrier pilot complaining their planes will be show down. As they should, it will encourage more careful selection of target and make it so people learn to properly use manual drops, not just 'auto I win' clicks. They will still get damage done, just not with the same impunity they have had so far. 

Also (and not to rag on Carriers too much), it might actually encourage the them to hunt Destroyers and Cruisers more. As a BB player, nothing infuriates me more to see carriers focus solely on the enemy battleships when they could be hunting the targets I would find harder to kill. I don't need too much help to go BB on BB but I do need someone to spot and hunt down the torp and fire spitters...

[robihr]

can BB stealth fire? no? feature working as intended.

 

with unnecessary buffed AA that indirectly nerfed CV, they put another stealth nerf that nerfed higher tier CA and DD.

 

GJ WG. nerf everything that can pose a threat to BB.

 

 

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

I'm very very bothered by the nerf. Cruiser survivability at high tier is an issue and concealment is a major counter to this.

 

This is going to hammer cruisers.

 

Not to mention making the 5 point me skill less useful. 

 

indeed , its now less effective on atago and zao .>.>

[daki]

In any case too much stealth firing ability just promotes passive/camping play. Never really understood what is the fun in being constantly at max range.

So generally aggressive players will feel very little to no difference. Passive players will be much more affected and I have no objections to that.

I wish there were more things done by WG to discourage the passive play which is the main reason for so much less fun in high tiers.

 

[EsaTuunanen]

Agreed. Even if it was announced as "fixed a bug that caused CE to affect firing detection. Now working as intended"

Well, previous patch fixed a bug of Situational Awareness working, so I wonder what other undocumented "fixes" there are.

[AgarwaenME]

In any case too much stealth firing ability just promotes passive/camping play. Never really understood what is the fun in being constantly at max range.

So generally aggressive players will feel very little to no difference. Passive players will be much more affected and I have no objections to that.

I wish there were more things done by WG to discourage the passive play which is the main reason for so much less fun in high tiers.

 

 

This is 100% wrong. Because stealth actually allowed you to get closer. This means that many CAs will actually be forced to actually stay at longer ranges, not shorter.

 

These ships could always (and would) be going in closer against suitable targets. But now to stand a chance to stay in the battle for a decent amount of time, will need to stay at ranges where they can still stay undetected, or where manouvering to avoid gunfire is more plausible.

 

If anything, this ALLOWS more passive play by those ships that usually were targets for this.

[Ictogan]

While it is poor form not to document it (I read the patch notes and do not recall mention of stealth fire changes, correct me if wrong!), I do support the changes made. Stealth fire was as bad as torp spam and needed to be drastically toned down.

 

NO ship class should get a no risk option when it comes to dealing damage, balancing the risk/reward for the classes, is in my opinion one of the most important aspects of the game.

 

Frankly the same applies to the AA changes, all these carrier pilot complaining their planes will be show down. As they should, it will encourage more careful selection of target and make it so people learn to properly use manual drops, not just 'auto I win' clicks. They will still get damage done, just not with the same impunity they have had so far. 

Also (and not to rag on Carriers too much), it might actually encourage the them to hunt Destroyers and Cruisers more. As a BB player, nothing infuriates me more to see carriers focus solely on the enemy battleships when they could be hunting the targets I would find harder to kill. I don't need too much help to go BB on BB but I do need someone to spot and hunt down the torp and fire spitters...

 

I'm playing BBs as well and can't say I consider invisifiring to be OP.

 

 

What many people don't seem to understand is that careful target selection was already neccesary before these AA buffs. This just makes CVs loose lots of planes even when carefully selecting their targets.

 

Another thing non-CV-players don't seem to keep in mind is that not only the AA of the target of a CV matters, the AA of any ship near it matters just as much.

If I'm in a BB and fire shells at a target that is alone, the shells do the same damage as if I shoot a target that is near 4 other enemies.

If I'm in a CV and attack a target that is alone, I will probably do a lot of damage depending on which ship I'm attacking. If I'm in a CV and attack a target that has 4 other enemies near it, I'm lucky to get any planes dropping their payload, let alone get back to my CV. Guess what happens when WG seems to balance AA around ships that are sailing alone and a CV ends up in a game with ships only sailing in groups of 2-3.

 

In any case too much stealth firing ability just promotes passive/camping play. Never really understood what is the fun in being constantly at max range.

So generally aggressive players will feel very little to no difference. Passive players will be much more affected and I have no objections to that.

I wish there were more things done by WG to discourage the passive play which is the main reason for so much less fun in high tiers.

 

I'm a very aggressive player(source: my survival rate), but I still think that invisifiring is just often neccesary in certain situations and a lot of ships are balanced around having that capability.

[MFour]

Well this is a pretty big nerf to a lot of cruisers, and I'm not sure that those cruisers really need nerfs... Zao maybe, but I think Zao needs a range nerf, not stealth. The DM will become a huge pain to use in BB heavy games on certain maps now (like Ocean)

[Acetessigester]

I am afraid that all main guns will be replaced by catapults some day.

[Xevious_Red]

Something that carrier players seem to overlook is that a ships AA gets reduced when it takes damage from HE.

 

So a ship that has very good AA on full health might well have virtually no AA by the end of it. Whereas a ship has the same armour against shells regardless of what health it's on.

 

I've seen destroyers ask for cruiser support for claiming a cap. I've seen them ask for BB support to clear out enemy cruisers. I've seen BB ask for scouts, or AA coverage, and I've seen cruisers ask for support.

At no point have I ever seen a carrier player ask anyone to shoot a ship a bit to break it's AA. I'll usually sling some HE at attleships/cruisers to help out our CV, but I've never seen it requested

[HMS_Worcester]

I'm playing BBs as well and can't say I consider invisifiring to be OP.

 

Same here, and I'm not aware of seeing people complain about it on the forums either. No idea why WG are doing this....

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

There are two issues here:

a) The rights and wrongs of stealth firing

I'll leave others to discuss this, but let's not just confine the discussion to stealth firing of guns - include stealth firing of torpedoes also.

b) The issue of poor communications

This is the OP's MAIN grievance, I believe.

 

It is simply outrageous that a major change is made to the game such as this without it being included in the patch notes.

[LilJumpa]

2nd major patch in a row where there have been changes (so called "fixes" ) to the visibility mechanics which directly affect gameplay and they don't even bother to mention them.

 

But we got informed that there was a bugfix in the Tutorial missions

• Fixed a bug that prevented the "Hold the RMB to Take a Look" tooltip from disappearing in the introductory mission

 

Beginning to have a "F%&k you too"  feeling about this game and Lesta.

[Admiral_noodle]

There are two issues here:

a) The rights and wrongs of stealth firing

I'll leave others to discuss this, but let's not just confine the discussion to stealth firing of guns - include stealth firing of torpedoes also.

b) The issue of poor communications

This is the OP's MAIN grievance, I believe.

 

It is simply outrageous that a major change is made to the game such as this without it being included in the patch notes.

 

Re a) I fully support the change. Invisifiring cruisers are annoying. I don't mind DDs doing it from smoke. I don't mind stealth ambushes when a salvo comes in from a previously undetected enemy. I hate the gamey invisifiring in plain line of sight mechanic. 

 

Re: b) I agree. It's so disappointing not to see anything in the patch notes. If it had been there it would have been one of the things the ST could have gone and played with. Plus it's not fair to players to have the game work differently with no notification. It's also sloppy IT documentation

[daki]

 

This is 100% wrong. Because stealth actually allowed you to get closer. This means that many CAs will actually be forced to actually stay at longer ranges, not shorter.

 

These ships could always (and would) be going in closer against suitable targets. But now to stand a chance to stay in the battle for a decent amount of time, will need to stay at ranges where they can still stay undetected, or where manouvering to avoid gunfire is more plausible.

 

If anything, this ALLOWS more passive play by those ships that usually were targets for this.

 

Stealth fire allows to deal damage without being opposed - it is an ideal "mechanic" for campers. Hence contrary to your claim, it does not provide any incentive whatsoever to get closer, rather the opposite.

Now if they want to stay at max range they will basically have no benefit out of it. In other words, now such cruiser captains will just get rekt more often at long ranges by BBs, so unless they get closer to the action they will end the game with little to no damage dealt. Who knows, they might even consider engaging enemy DDs for a change, rather than just clicking for 20mins against BBs.

There is a lot of whine here about camping high tier BBs, but to me camping cruisers are even worse. I have seen more than enough cruiser captains spending the whole game in the back because they think that invisifire is the only way how to play certain cruisers.

[Ictogan]

 

Something that carrier players seem to overlook is that a ships AA gets reduced when it takes damage from HE.

 

So a ship that has very good AA on full health might well have virtually no AA by the end of it. Whereas a ship has the same armour against shells regardless of what health it's on.

 

I've seen destroyers ask for cruiser support for claiming a cap. I've seen them ask for BB support to clear out enemy cruisers. I've seen BB ask for scouts, or AA coverage, and I've seen cruisers ask for support.

At no point have I ever seen a carrier player ask anyone to shoot a ship a bit to break it's AA. I'll usually sling some HE at attleships/cruisers to help out our CV, but I've never seen it requested

 

It takes easily several minutes to get a ships AA strength down by a significant amount. So you tell me I should ask people to spam HE at targets for several minutes just so I can loose a few less planes when I do an attack run on them. Quite frankly from the perspective of a CV player I wouldn't give a crapif AA guns couldn't be destroyed anymore, it would makes much less of a difference than the huge AA buffs introduced with this patch.

Anyways, this thread is not about CVs and I don't want to continue a CV discussion in here, so if you want to continure this discussion with me, please do so in the thread that already exists where the AA changes in this patch are being discussed.

[Ictogan]

 

Stealth fire allows to deal damage without being opposed - it is an ideal "mechanic" for campers. Hence contrary to your claim, it does not provide any incentive whatsoever to get closer, rather the opposite.

Now if they want to stay at max range they will basically have no benefit out of it. In other words, now such cruiser captains will just get rekt more often at long ranges by BBs, so unless they get closer to the action they will end the game with little to no damage dealt. Who knows, they might even consider engaging enemy DDs for a change, rather than just clicking for 20mins against BBs.

There is a lot of whine here about camping high tier BBs, but to me camping cruisers are even worse. I have seen more than enough cruiser captains spending the whole game in the back because they think that invisifire is the only way how to play certain cruisers.

 

Even without stealth fire, CAs have to stay far away from BBs or they will just get citadelled easily even if angled. As a CA in high tiers it's nearly suicidal to push towards BBs without the BBs in your team also pushing.

[Admiral_noodle]

I just hated the excessive mechanic of being safe and firing. It feels gamey and I don't like it. I'm glad of the changes. Maybe we will have a bit of a rebalance of Bb v CA later if cruisers somehow fall apart (which they won't. Only about 2% of players are any good at invisifiring)

 

However for it not to be in the patch notes is just rubbish.

 

Then again I've yet to meet a game company that puts out reliably accurate patch notes, although Others at least try!

[daki]

 

It is simply outrageous that a major change is made to the game such as this without it being included in the patch notes.

 

We all get upset with unannounced changes, but that is a bit of over-exaggeration.

Data from Reddit:

[–]Gilthanor 2 points 15 hours ago 

Pre 5.6 values with CE, followed by post 5.6:

Gearing 9.4 - 9.7 Khab 13.2 - 13.8 Shima 9.4 - 9.7 Des Moines 16.0 - 16.7 Zao 15.0 - 15.8 Gremy 9.5 - 9.9 Atago 14.5 - 15.2 Kamikaze R 8.7 - 9.0

 

As very few ships are affected (and not that much tbh) I personally consider this as a minor change.

[Ictogan]

I just hated the excessive mechanic of being safe and firing. It feels gamey and I don't like it. I'm glad of the changes. Maybe we will have a bit of a rebalance of Bb v CA later if cruisers somehow fall apart (which they won't. Only about 2% of players are any good at invisifiring)

 

However for it not to be in the patch notes is just rubbish.

 

Then again I've yet to meet a game company that puts out reliably accurate patch notes, although Others at least try!

 

Given that both 0.5.5 and 0.5.6 patch notes didn't include the nerfs to stealth that were done in each of them, I somewhat doubt that it's simply sloppy documentation.

[SBS]

What nerf happened in 0.5.5?

[LilJumpa]

 

We all get upset with unannounced changes, but that is a bit of over-exaggeration.

Data from Reddit:

[–]Gilthanor 2 points 15 hours ago 

Pre 5.6 values with CE, followed by post 5.6:

Gearing 9.4 - 9.7 Khab 13.2 - 13.8 Shima 9.4 - 9.7 Des Moines 16.0 - 16.7 Zao 15.0 - 15.8 Gremy 9.5 - 9.9 Atago 14.5 - 15.2 Kamikaze R 8.7 - 9.0

 

As very few ships are affected (and not that much tbh) I personally consider this as a minor change.

 

All ships are affected by exactly 10% of their penalty they gain which is 30xcaliber

 

So all Cruisers with 203mm + 609m

Cruisers with 152mm + 456m (except MK +656m)

RU DDs: +590m

other DDs + ~ 360 - 390m

 

Depends what you see as minor change or Bugfix as they call it, but it has more effect on the gameplay than 90% of the whole patch.

 

But Admiral_Noodle will spam this thread to oblivion just like the other one too, so nobody official will ever answer here anyway.